Re: [PATCH v4 2/5] x86,entry: Only call user_exit if TIF_NOHZ

From: Oleg Nesterov
Date: Thu Jul 31 2014 - 12:46:11 EST

On 07/31, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 10:23:34AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >
> > At the end of the day, the syscall slowpath code calls a bunch of
> > functions depending on what TIF_XYZ flags are set. As long as it's
> > structured like "if (TIF_A) do_a(); if (TIF_B) do_b();" or something
> > like that, it's comprehensible. But once random functions with no
> > explicit flag checks or comments start showing up, it gets confusing.
> Yeah that's a point. I don't mind much the TIF_NOHZ test if you like.

And in my opinion

if (work & TIF_XYZ)

looks even more confusing. Because, once again, TIF_XYZ is not the
reason to call user_exit().

Not to mention this adds a minor performance penalty.

> > If it's indeed all-or-nothing, I could remove the check and add a
> > comment. But please keep in mind that, currently, the slow path is
> > *slow*, and my patches only improve the entry case. So enabling
> > context tracking on every task will hurt.
> That's what we do anyway. I haven't found a safe way to enabled context tracking
> without tracking all CPUs.

And if we change this, then the code above becomes racy. The state of
TIF_XYZ can be changed right after the check. OK, it is racy anyway ;)
but still this adds more confusion.

I feel that TIF_XYZ must die. But yes, yes, I know that it is very simple
to say this. And no, so far I do not know how we can improve this all.

But again, again, I won't insist. Just another "can't resist" email,
please ignore.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at