[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1209867767.26383.35.camel@pasglop>
Date: Sun, 04 May 2008 12:22:47 +1000
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl,
efault@....de, elendil@...net.nl, parag.warudkar@...il.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, guichaz@...oo.fr, andi@...stfloor.org
Subject: Re: 'global' rq->clock
> on nohz we still keep jiffies uptodate - despite there not being an
> explicit 'keep jiffies uptodate' tick interrupt anymore. So on every
> irq_enter() we roll jiffies forward - if needed - and thus emulate
> jiffies behavior to drivers and core kernel code, etc.
>
> if an IPI on Power does not do an irq_enter() then you might miss out on
> updated jiffies. That might not matter for most jiffies, but you might
> also miss out on the 'touch the softlockup watchdog because we just woke
> from idle' action. This is what triggered the false positive warnings on
> Sparc64.
>
> the same bug existed on x86 too: that too does a few IPIs without
> irq_enter/irq_exit. We now removed the softlockup dependency so it
> should not be required to do an irq_enter()/exit anymore - unless the
> code that the IPI uses accesses jiffies. (but that would be unusual)
Allright, so it looks like we don't have a problem today, though I'll be
careful if some of our CPUs come up with more fancy ways to do IPIs.
Currently they are just normal interrupts, so we do irq_enter/exit and
we process softirqs on the way out.
Ben.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists