[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAFTL4hw+4V5eG4k515YKn_p2BC_cYH_4rboVaQpXorYTom+23w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 19:12:33 +0100
From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] irq_work: Warn if there's still work on cpu_down
2012/11/15 Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>:
> If we are in nohz and there's still irq_work to be done when the idle
> task is about to go offline. Give a nasty warning.
>
> Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
>
> Index: linux-rt.git/kernel/irq_work.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-rt.git.orig/kernel/irq_work.c
> +++ linux-rt.git/kernel/irq_work.c
> @@ -103,6 +103,9 @@ bool irq_work_needs_cpu(void)
> if (llist_empty(this_list))
> return false;
>
> + /* All work should have been flushed before going offline */
> + WARN_ON_ONCE(cpu_is_offline(smp_processor_id()));
Should we return false in that case? I don't know what can happen if
we wait for one more tick while the CPU is offline and apic is
deactivated.
> +
> return true;
> }
>
>
>
--
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