From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755700AbeDWPqE (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Apr 2018 11:46:04 -0400 Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.158.5]:33392 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755244AbeDWPqC (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Apr 2018 11:46:02 -0400 Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2018 08:47:07 -0700 From: "Paul E. McKenney" To: Steven Rostedt Cc: Peter Zijlstra , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@kernel.org, jiangshanlai@gmail.com, dipankar@in.ibm.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com, josh@joshtriplett.org, tglx@linutronix.de, dhowells@redhat.com, edumazet@google.com, fweisbec@gmail.com, oleg@redhat.com, joel.opensrc@gmail.com Subject: Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 01/22] sched: Make non-production PREEMPT cond_resched() help Tasks RCU Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com References: <20180423023150.GA21533@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1524450747-22778-1-git-send-email-paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20180423085127.GR4064@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20180423124000.GL26088@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20180423094742.6582e19d@gandalf.local.home> <20180423141038.GA4064@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20180423103529.36848ae1@gandalf.local.home> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180423103529.36848ae1@gandalf.local.home> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 x-cbid: 18042315-0040-0000-0000-00000420A83D X-IBM-SpamModules-Scores: X-IBM-SpamModules-Versions: BY=3.00008906; HX=3.00000241; KW=3.00000007; PH=3.00000004; SC=3.00000257; SDB=6.01022153; UDB=6.00521692; IPR=6.00801388; MB=3.00020728; MTD=3.00000008; XFM=3.00000015; UTC=2018-04-23 15:45:58 X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused x-cbparentid: 18042315-0041-0000-0000-00000826B23C Message-Id: <20180423154707.GP26088@linux.vnet.ibm.com> X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:,, definitions=2018-04-23_05:,, signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 impostorscore=0 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1709140000 definitions=main-1804230156 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 10:35:29AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Mon, 23 Apr 2018 16:10:38 +0200 > Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20180227153646.GD3777@linux.vnet.ibm.com > > > > That thread using cond_resched_task_rcu_qs() seems like a _lot_ better > > than having cond_resched() semantics change depending on random > > !scheduler config parameters. > > Yeah, I agree. Not sure why Paul didn't push it. Maybe because I never > replied to that final email and he forgot? > > Paul? Yeah, I have been a bit event-driven of late. So the thought is to keep cond_resched() as-is and use cond_resched_task_rcu_qs(), that is after the rename, for the stress tests instead of the current cond_resched(). Or did I lose the thread? Thanx, paul