From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1755527AbcIJQWR (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Sat, 10 Sep 2016 12:22:17 -0400
Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([198.137.202.9]:49021 "EHLO
        bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1754821AbcIJQWP (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Sat, 10 Sep 2016 12:22:15 -0400
Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2016 18:22:10 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Cc: Todd Kjos <tkjos@google.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Arve Hj??nnev??g <arve@android.com>,
        Riley Andrews <riandrews@android.com>, devel@driverdev.osuosl.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] android: binder: Disable preemption while holding the
 global binder lock
Message-ID: <20160910162210.GK10153@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <CAHRSSEwkj-VxstqCm6JzVQcmZzxLQcob0JNiEhzes9oT0-tXSg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20160910161659.GA7987@infradead.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20160910161659.GA7987@infradead.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23.1 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 09:16:59AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 08, 2016 at 09:12:50AM -0700, Todd Kjos wrote:
> > In Android systems, the display pipeline relies on low
> > latency binder transactions and is therefore sensitive to
> > delays caused by contention for the global binder lock.
> > Jank is siginificantly reduced by disabling preemption
> > while the global binder lock is held.
> 
> That's now how preempt_disable is supposed to use.  It is for critical

not, that's supposed to be _not_. Just to be absolutely clear, this is
NOT how you're supposed to use preempt_disable().

> sections that use per-cpu or similar resources.
> 
> > 
> > Originally-from: Riley Andrews <riandrews@google.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Todd Kjos <tkjos@google.com>

> > @@ -389,7 +390,11 @@ static int task_get_unused_fd_flags(struct
> > binder_proc *proc, int flags)
> >   rlim_cur = task_rlimit(proc->tsk, RLIMIT_NOFILE);
> >   unlock_task_sighand(proc->tsk, &irqs);
> > 
> > - return __alloc_fd(files, 0, rlim_cur, flags);
> > + preempt_enable_no_resched();
> > + ret = __alloc_fd(files, 0, rlim_cur, flags);
> > + preempt_disable();

And the fact that people want to use preempt_enable_no_resched() shows
that they're absolutely clueless.

This is so broken its not funny.

NAK NAK NAK