On 07/29, Andy Lutomirski wrote:

On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 9:54 AM, Oleg Nesterov [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Yes, just to trigger the slow path, I guess.

quoted

I'll update the code to call user_exit iff TIF_NOHZ is
set.

Or perhaps it would be better to not add another user of this (strange) flag
and just call user_exit() unconditionally(). But, yes, you need to use
from "work = flags & (_TIF_WORK_SYSCALL_ENTRY & ~TIF_NOHZ)" then.\

user_exit looks slow enough to me that a branch to try to avoid it may
be worthwhile.  I bet that explicitly checking the flag is
actually both faster and clearer.

I don't think so (unless I am confused again), note that user_exit() uses
jump label. But this doesn't matter. I meant that we should avoid TIF_NOHZ
if possible because I think it should die somehow (currently I do not know
how ;). And because it is ugly to check the same condition twice:

	if (work & TIF_NOHZ) {
		// user_exit()
		if (context_tracking_is_enabled())
			context_tracking_user_exit();
	}

TIF_NOHZ is set if and only if context_tracking_is_enabled() is true.
So I think that

	work = current_thread_info()->flags & (_TIF_WORK_SYSCALL_ENTRY & ~TIF_NOHZ);

	user_exit();

looks a bit better. But I won't argue.

That's what I did for v4.

I am going to read it today. Not that I think I can help or find something
wrong.

Oleg.