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

[Takuya Yoshikawa]

On Thu, 03 May 2012 14:29:10 +0200
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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,

I agree with you in principle, but isn't cond_resched_lock() there for that?

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

I see.

I did some tests using spin_is_contended() and need_resched() and saw
that need_resched() was called as often as spin_is_contended(), so
experimentally I understand your point.

But as I could not see why spin_needbreak() was differently implemented
depending on CONFIG_PREEMPT, I wanted to understand the meaning.

Thanks,
	Takuya
--
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/