[RFC/PATCH 5/7] ARM: Move get_thread_info macro definition to <asm/assembler.h>

[George G. Davis]

On Oct 13, 2011, at 10:54 PM, Nicolas Pitre wrote:

> On Thu, 13 Oct 2011, George G. Davis wrote:
> 
>> 
>> On Oct 13, 2011, at 10:34 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>> 
>>> On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 02:04:33AM -0400, gdavis at mvista.com wrote:
>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/assembler.h b/arch/arm/include/asm/assembler.h
>>>> index 78397d0..eaf4939 100644
>>>> --- a/arch/arm/include/asm/assembler.h
>>>> +++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/assembler.h
>>>> @@ -36,6 +36,20 @@
>>>> 	.endm
>>>> #endif  /* !CONFIG_THUMB2_KERNEL */
>>>> 
>>>> +	.macro	preempt_disable, tsk, cnt
>>>> +	get_thread_info \tsk
>>>> +	ldr	\cnt, [\tsk, #TI_PREEMPT]
>>>> +	add	\cnt, \cnt, #1
>>>> +	str	\cnt, [\tsk, #TI_PREEMPT]
>>>> +	.endm
>>>> +
>>>> +	.macro	preempt_enable, tsk, cnt
>>>> +	get_thread_info \tsk
>>>> +	ldr	\cnt, [\tsk, #TI_PREEMPT]
>>>> +	sub	\cnt, \cnt, #1
>>>> +	str	\cnt, [\tsk, #TI_PREEMPT]
>>>> +	.endm
>>>> +
>>>> /*
>>>> * Endian independent macros for shifting bytes within registers.
>>>> */
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Not as efficient as it could be but I imagine the macros could
>>>> be written to support optional load of \tsk and/or optional \tmp
>>>> parameters to cover other common cases.
>>> 
>>> It's actually not that simple either: if you disable preemption, then you
>>> need to check for a preempt event after re-enabling preemption.  The
>>> C level code does this:
>>> 
>>> #define preempt_enable_no_resched() \
>>> do { \
>>>       barrier(); \
>>>       dec_preempt_count(); \
>>> } while (0)
>>> 
>>> #define preempt_check_resched() \
>>> do { \
>>>       if (unlikely(test_thread_flag(TIF_NEED_RESCHED))) \
>>>               preempt_schedule(); \
>>> } while (0)
>>> 
>>> #define preempt_enable() \
>>> do { \
>>>       preempt_enable_no_resched(); \
>>>       barrier(); \
>>>       preempt_check_resched(); \
>>> } while (0)
>>> 
>>> Note that preempt_schedule() will check the preempt count itself and
>>> return immediately if non-zero or irqs are disabled.
>> 
>> It would be easier to just insert preempt_disable/preempt_enable in
>> the cache and proc function call macros.  I did that in an earlier test
>> patch but moved it into the cache-v6.S and proc-v6.S files instead
>> since it only affects ARM11 MPCore as far as I'm aware.
> 
> Alternately, why don't you simply disable IRQs locally?  No preemption 
> can happen until enabled again, just like preempt_disable() would do, 
> and the IRQ off period should be short enough not to visibly affect IRQ 
> latency.  And that is easily done in assembly too, without preventing 
> rescheduling if needed afterwards.

I didn't want to impact interrupt latency but yes, that would work as well
and is easier to implement.  : )

--
Regards,
George

> 
> 
> Nicolas