On Tue, Jul 08, 2025 at 10:09:45AM -0300, Wander Lairson Costa wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 07, 2025 at 01:26:22PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 04, 2025 at 02:07:43PM -0300, Wander Lairson Costa wrote:
> > > +#if defined(CONFIG_DEBUG_PREEMPT) || defined(CONFIG_TRACE_PREEMPT_TOGGLE)
> > > +#define preempt_count_dec_and_test() \
> > > + ({ preempt_count_sub(1); should_resched(0); })
> > > +#endif
> >
> > Also this is terrible. Surely you can do better.
> >
>
> Thank you for pointing this out. I'm not sure I've fully understood the
> concern here. My understanding was that this logic was pre-existing and
> my patch only reorganized it.
>
> I'm clearly missing something. Could you please elaborate a bit on the
> issue you've spotted?
The normal (!DEBUG) case uses __preempt_count_dec_and_test(), which is
significantly better.
