Re: [PATCH v2 7/9] sched: define TIF_ALLOW_RESCHED

[Thomas Gleixner]

On Wed, Sep 20 2023 at 17:58, Ankur Arora wrote:
> Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> So no, we don't need yet another knob. We keep them chucking along and
>> if they really want they can adopt to the new world order. :)
>
> Will they chuckle along, or die trying ;)?

Either way is fine :)

> I grepped for "preempt_enable|preempt_disable" for all the archs and
> hexagon and m68k don't seem to do any explicit accounting at all.
> (Though, neither do nios2 and openrisc, and both csky and microblaze
> only do it in the tlbflush path.)
>
>         arch/hexagon      0
>         arch/m68k         0
...
>         arch/s390        91
>         arch/mips       115
>         arch/x86        146
>         arch/powerpc    201
>
> My concern is given that we preempt on timeslice expiration for all
> three preemption models, we could end up preempting at an unsafe
> location.

As I said in my reply to Linus, that count is not really conclusive.

arch/m68k has a count of 0 and supports PREEMPT for the COLDFIRE
sub-architecture and I know for sure that at some point in the past
PREEMPT_RT was supported on COLDFIRE with minimal changes to the
architecture code.

That said, I'm pretty sure that quite some of these
preempt_disable/enable pairs in arch/* are subject to voodoo
programming, but that's a different problem to analyze.

> Still, not the most pressing of problems.

Exactly :)

Thanks,

        tglx