From: Paul Burton <paul.burton@mips.com>
To: Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>
Cc: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Ralf Baechle <ralf@linux-mips.org>,
James Hogan <jhogan@kernel.org>,
"linux-mips@vger.kernel.org" <linux-mips@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/14] MIPS: entry: Remove unneeded need_resched() loop
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2019 18:13:07 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190314181306.k6vxmaomyqalhi65@pburton-laptop> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190311224752.8337-7-valentin.schneider@arm.com>
Hi Valentin,
On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 10:47:44PM +0000, Valentin Schneider wrote:
> Since the enabling and disabling of IRQs within preempt_schedule_irq()
> is contained in a need_resched() loop, we don't need the outer arch
> code loop.
>
> Do note that commit a18815abcdfd ("Use preempt_schedule_irq.")
> initially removed the existing loop, but commit cdaed73afb61 ("Fix
> preemption bug.") reintroduced it. It is however not clear what the
> issue was and why such a loop was reintroduced, so I'm probably
> missing something.
It looks to me like commit a18815abcdfd ("Use preempt_schedule_irq.")
forgot the branch to restore_all, so would have fallen through to
ret_from_fork() & done weird things.
Adding the branch to restore_all as you're doing here would have been a
better fix than commit cdaed73afb61 ("Fix preemption bug.").
> Signed-off-by: Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>
> Cc: Ralf Baechle <ralf@linux-mips.org>
> Cc: Paul Burton <paul.burton@mips.com>
> Cc: James Hogan <jhogan@kernel.org>
> Cc: linux-mips@vger.kernel.org
> ---
> arch/mips/kernel/entry.S | 3 +--
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/mips/kernel/entry.S b/arch/mips/kernel/entry.S
> index d7de8adcfcc8..2240faeda62a 100644
> --- a/arch/mips/kernel/entry.S
> +++ b/arch/mips/kernel/entry.S
> @@ -58,7 +58,6 @@ resume_kernel:
> local_irq_disable
> lw t0, TI_PRE_COUNT($28)
> bnez t0, restore_all
> -need_resched:
> LONG_L t0, TI_FLAGS($28)
> andi t1, t0, _TIF_NEED_RESCHED
> beqz t1, restore_all
> @@ -66,7 +65,7 @@ need_resched:
> andi t0, 1
> beqz t0, restore_all
> jal preempt_schedule_irq
> - b need_resched
> + j restore_all
One nit - why change from branch to jump? It's not a big deal, but I'd
prefer we stick with the branch ("b") instruction for a few reasons:
- restore_all is nearby so there's no issue with it being out of range
of a branch in any variation of the MIPS ISA.
- It's more consistent with the future of the MIPS architecture, eg.
nanoMIPS in which branch instructions all use PC-relative immediate
offsets & jump instructions are always of the "register" variety where
the destination is specified by a register rather than an immediate
encoded in the instruction (the assembler will fix it up & emit a
branch anyway, but I generally prefer to invoke less magic in these
areas...).
- A PC-relative branch won't generate an extra reloc in a relocatable
kernel, whereas a jump will.
Even better would be if we take advantage of this being a tail call & do
this:
PTR_LA ra, restore_all
j preempt_schedule_irq
(Where I left the call to preempt_schedule_irq using a jump because it
may be further away.)
Though I don't mind if you wanna just s/j/b/ & leave the tail call
optimisation for someone else to do as a later change.
Thanks,
Paul
> #endif
>
> FEXPORT(ret_from_kernel_thread)
> --
> 2.20.1
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-03-14 18:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-03-11 22:47 [PATCH 00/14] entry: preempt_schedule_irq() callers scrub Valentin Schneider
2019-03-11 22:47 ` [PATCH 06/14] MIPS: entry: Remove unneeded need_resched() loop Valentin Schneider
2019-03-14 18:13 ` Paul Burton [this message]
2019-03-14 18:38 ` Valentin Schneider
2019-05-10 16:16 ` Maciej W. Rozycki
2019-03-15 16:31 ` [PATCH v2] " Valentin Schneider
2019-03-19 23:18 ` Paul Burton
2019-03-12 18:03 ` [PATCH 00/14] entry: preempt_schedule_irq() callers scrub Vineet Gupta
2019-03-12 18:18 ` Valentin Schneider
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20190314181306.k6vxmaomyqalhi65@pburton-laptop \
--to=paul.burton@mips.com \
--cc=jhogan@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mips@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=ralf@linux-mips.org \
--cc=valentin.schneider@arm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).