Re: [PATCH] x86: enable preemption in delay

[Steven Rostedt]

On Sun, 25 May 2008, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>
> +/*
> + * 5 usec on a 1GHZ machine. Not necessarily correct, but not too long
> + * either.

And what happens when we have 10GHz boxes that can do migration in 1us,
and the delay that is asked for is 2us. We can return early.  I don't like
to place assumptions of this kind that can hurt with future hardware
enhancements.

-- Steve


> + */
> +#define TSC_MIGRATE_COUNT 5000
> +
>  /* TSC based delay: */
>  static void delay_tsc(unsigned long loops)
>  {
>  	unsigned long bclock, now;
> +	int cpu;
>
> -	preempt_disable();		/* TSC's are per-cpu */
> +	preempt_disable();
> +	cpu = smp_processor_id();
>  	rdtscl(bclock);
>  	do {
>  		rep_nop();
> -		rdtscl(now);
> -	} while ((now-bclock) < loops);
> +
> +		/* Allow RT tasks to run */
> +		preempt_enable();
> +		preempt_disable();
> +
> +		/*
> +		 * It is possible that we moved to another CPU, and
> +		 * since TSC's are per-cpu we need to calculate
> +		 * that. The delay must guarantee that we wait "at
> +		 * least" the amount of time. Being moved to another
> +		 * CPU could make the wait longer but we just need to
> +		 * make sure we waited long enough. Rebalance the
> +		 * counter for this CPU.
> +		 */
> +		if (unlikely(cpu != smp_processor_id())) {
> +			if (loops <= TSC_MIGRATE_COUNT)
> +				break;
> +			cpu = smp_processor_id();
> +			rdtscl(bclock);
> +			loops -= TSC_MIGRATE_COUNT;
> +		} else {
> +			rdtscl(now);
> +			if ((now - bclock) >= loops)
> +				break;
> +			loops -= (now - bclock);
> +			bclock = now;
> +		}
> +	} while (loops > 0);
>  	preempt_enable();
>  }
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/