lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Sep]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [patch RFC 00/15] mm/highmem: Provide a preemptible variant of kmap_atomic & friends
On Wed, 23 Sep 2020 10:40:32 +0200
peterz@infradead.org wrote:

> However, with migrate_disable() we can have each task preempted in a
> migrate_disable() region, worse we can stack them all on the _same_ CPU
> (super ridiculous odds, sure). And then we end up only able to run one
> task, with the rest of the CPUs picking their nose.

What if we just made migrate_disable() a local_lock() available for !RT?

I mean make it a priority inheritance PER CPU lock.

That is, no two tasks could do a migrate_disable() on the same CPU? If
one task does a migrate_disable() and then gets preempted and the
preempting task does a migrate_disable() on the same CPU, it will block
and wait for the first task to do a migrate_enable().

No two tasks on the same CPU could enter the migrate_disable() section
simultaneously, just like no two tasks could enter a preempt_disable()
section.

In essence, we just allow local_lock() to be used for both RT and !RT.

Perhaps make migrate_disable() an anonymous local_lock()?

This should lower the SHC in theory, if you can't have stacked migrate
disables on the same CPU.

-- Steve

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-09-23 17:53    [W:0.169 / U:27.972 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site