>> Hmm. I can do that, but wouldn't that make CONFIG_PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY
>> mostly equivalent to CONFIG_PREEMPT_NONE?
>
> According the the Kconfig help, PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY is about the
> *explicit* preemption points. And we do have a lot of them in
> "might_sleep()".
>
> And personally, I think it
Hmm. I can do that, but wouldn't that make CONFIG_PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY
mostly equivalent to CONFIG_PREEMPT_NONE?
According the the Kconfig help, PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY is about the
*explicit* preemption points. And we do have a lot of them in
might_sleep().
And personally, I think it makes a *lot*
On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 08:42:58AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 4:04 PM, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > From: Andi Kleen
> >
> > Move the cond_resched() check for CONFIG_PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY into
> > the low level copy_*_user code. This avoids some code bloat and
> > makes check
On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 08:42:58AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 4:04 PM, Andi Kleen a...@firstfloor.org wrote:
From: Andi Kleen a...@linux.intel.com
Move the cond_resched() check for CONFIG_PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY into
the low level copy_*_user code. This avoids some code
On Sat, 10 August 2013 20:23:09 +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>
> Sounds like the debug aspect and the preemption point addition need
> to be sorf-of split into two different functions/macros and each used
> separately.
>
> Something like keep the current might_sleep and have debug_sleep or
>
On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 09:27:33AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Now, the *debug* logic is entirely different, of course. Maybe the
> problem is that we have mixed up the two so badly, and we have
> "might_sleep()" that implies more of a debug issue than a preemption
> issue, and then people add
On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 9:10 AM, Andi Kleen wrote:
>
> Hmm. I can do that, but wouldn't that make CONFIG_PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY
> mostly equivalent to CONFIG_PREEMPT_NONE?
According the the Kconfig help, PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY is about the
*explicit* preemption points. And we do have a lot of them in
> Most of this series looks fine, but I really think that we
> could/should just take that extra step, and say "no, user accesses
> don't imply that we need to check for scheduling".
Hmm. I can do that, but wouldn't that make CONFIG_PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY
mostly equivalent to CONFIG_PREEMPT_NONE?
On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 4:04 PM, Andi Kleen wrote:
> From: Andi Kleen
>
> Move the cond_resched() check for CONFIG_PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY into
> the low level copy_*_user code. This avoids some code bloat and
> makes check much more efficient by avoiding unnecessary function calls.
May I suggest
On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 4:04 PM, Andi Kleen a...@firstfloor.org wrote:
From: Andi Kleen a...@linux.intel.com
Move the cond_resched() check for CONFIG_PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY into
the low level copy_*_user code. This avoids some code bloat and
makes check much more efficient by avoiding unnecessary
Most of this series looks fine, but I really think that we
could/should just take that extra step, and say no, user accesses
don't imply that we need to check for scheduling.
Hmm. I can do that, but wouldn't that make CONFIG_PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY
mostly equivalent to CONFIG_PREEMPT_NONE?
Need to
On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 9:10 AM, Andi Kleen a...@firstfloor.org wrote:
Hmm. I can do that, but wouldn't that make CONFIG_PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY
mostly equivalent to CONFIG_PREEMPT_NONE?
According the the Kconfig help, PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY is about the
*explicit* preemption points. And we do have a lot
On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 09:27:33AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
Now, the *debug* logic is entirely different, of course. Maybe the
problem is that we have mixed up the two so badly, and we have
might_sleep() that implies more of a debug issue than a preemption
issue, and then people add those
On Sat, 10 August 2013 20:23:09 +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
Sounds like the debug aspect and the preemption point addition need
to be sorf-of split into two different functions/macros and each used
separately.
Something like keep the current might_sleep and have debug_sleep or
similar
From: Andi Kleen
Move the cond_resched() check for CONFIG_PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY into
the low level copy_*_user code. This avoids some code bloat and
makes check much more efficient by avoiding unnecessary function calls.
This is currently only for the non __ variants.
For the sleep debug case the
From: Andi Kleen a...@linux.intel.com
Move the cond_resched() check for CONFIG_PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY into
the low level copy_*_user code. This avoids some code bloat and
makes check much more efficient by avoiding unnecessary function calls.
This is currently only for the non __ variants.
For the
16 matches
Mail list logo
