On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 10:47 AM, Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> It gets set by preemption - and,
>> somewhat illogically, by cond_resched().
>
> I suspect that was done to make cond_resched() (voluntary preemption)
> more robust and only have a single preemption path/logic. But all that
> was done well before I got involved.
So I think it's actually the name that is bad, not necessarily the behavior.
We tend to put "cond_resched()" (and particularly
"cond_resched_lock()") in some fairly awkward places, and it's not
always entirely clear that task->state == TASK_RUNNING there.
So the preemptive behavior of not *really* putting the task to sleep
may actually be the right one. But it is rather non-intuitive given
the name - because "cond_resched()" basically is not at all equivalent
to "if (need_resched()) schedule()", which you'd kind of expect.
An explicit schedule will actually act on the task->state, and make us
go to sleep. "cond_resched()" really is just a "voluntary preemption
point". And I think it would be better if it got named that way.
Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
