Re: [RFC] sched: make callers check lock contention for cond_resched_lock()

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


On 05/03/2012 03:29 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-05-03 at 21:22 +0900, Takuya Yoshikawa wrote:
> > Although the real use case is out of this RFC patch, we are now discussing
> > a case in which we may hold a spin_lock for long time, ms order, depending
> > on workload;  and in that case, other threads -- VCPU threads -- should be
> > given higher priority for that problematic lock. 
>
> Firstly, if you can hold a lock that long, it shouldn't be a spinlock,

In fact with your mm preemptibility work it can be made into a mutex, if
the entire mmu notifier path can be done in task context.  However it
ends up a strange mutex - you can sleep while holding it but you may not
allocate, because you might recurse into an mmu notifier again.

Most uses of the lock only involve tweaking some bits though.

> secondly why isn't TIF_RESCHED being set if its running that long? That
> should still make cond_resched_lock() break.


-- 
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html


[KVM ARM]     [KVM ia64]     [KVM ppc]     [Spice Development]     [Libvirt]     [Libvirt Users]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Photo]     [Yosemite News]    [Yosemite Photos]    [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]

Add to Google Powered by Linux