On Fri, 24 Jan 2025 14:50:11 -0800 Josh Poimboeuf <jpoim...@kernel.org> wrote:
> Hm, reading this again I'm wondering if you're actually proposing that > the unwind happens on @prev after it gets rescheduled sometime in the > future? Does that actually solve the issue? What if doesn't get > rescheduled within a reasonable amount of time? Correct, it would be prev that would be doing the unwinding and not next. But when prev is scheduled back onto the CPU. That way it's only blocking itself. The use case that people were doing this with was measuring the time a task is off the CPU. It can't get that time until the task schedules back anyway. What the complaint was about was that it could be a very long system call, with lots of sleeps and they couldn't do the processing. I can go back and ask, but I'm pretty sure doing the unwind when a task comes back to the CPU would be sufficient. -- Steve
