Re: [RFC PATCH 79/86] treewide: net: remove cond_resched()

[Ankur Arora]

Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> On Wed, 8 Nov 2023 13:16:17 +0100
> Eric Dumazet <edumazet@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> > Most of the uses here are in set-1 (some right after we give up a
>> > lock or enable bottom-halves, causing an explicit preemption check.)
>> >
>> > We can remove all of them.
>>
>> A patch series of 86 is not reasonable.

/me nods.

> Agreed. The removal of cond_resched() wasn't needed for the RFC, as there's
> really no comments needed once we make cond_resched obsolete.
>
> I think Ankur just wanted to send all the work for the RFC to let people
> know what he has done. I chalk that up as a Noobie mistake.
>
> Ankur, next time you may want to break things up to get RFCs for each step
> before going to the next one.

Yeah agreed. It would have made sense to break this up into changes
touching the scheduler code first, get agreement. Rinse. Repeat.

> Currently, it looks like the first thing to do is to start with Thomas's
> patch, and get the kinks out of NEED_RESCHED_LAZY, as Thomas suggested.
>
> Perhaps work on separating PREEMPT_RCU from PREEMPT.

Agree to both of those.

> Then you may need to work on handling the #ifndef PREEMPTION parts of the
> kernel.

In other words express !PREEMPTION scheduler models/things that depend
on cond_resched() etc, into Thomas' model?

> And so on. Each being a separate patch series that will affect the way the
> rest of the changes will be done.

Ack that.

> I want this change too, so I'm willing to help you out on this. If you
> didn't start it, I would have ;-)

Thanks and I really appreciate that.

--
ankur