[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAFTL4hxaOKvNSWkHgw80Cp1JTNEGXREWHtyQJEzeNgUZHMyTyQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 11:38:32 +0100
From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>, Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Paul McKenney <paul.mckenney@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: Debugging Thinkpad T430s occasional suspend failure.
2013/2/18 Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>:
> On Mon, 18 Feb 2013, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
>> diff --git a/kernel/softirq.c b/kernel/softirq.c
>> index ed567ba..69fbefd 100644
>> --- a/kernel/softirq.c
>> +++ b/kernel/softirq.c
>> @@ -277,6 +277,17 @@ restart:
>> tsk_restore_flags(current, old_flags, PF_MEMALLOC);
>> }
>>
>> +#ifndef __ARCH_IRQ_EXIT_IRQS_DISABLED
>
> We really should get rid of that and make irqs disabled on irq exit
> mandatory.
Until now I even thought that having irqs disabled in irq_exit() was
mandatory. I need to have a second look at tick_nohz_irq_exit() as I
modified it with this requirement in mind...
Also with this patch, if a nesting interrupt happens right after
tick_nohz_irq_exit(), this new irq will call tick_nohz_stop_idle() but
not tick_nohz_start_idle() on the end. Leaving that unbalanced. I
could work that around but I don't want to spaghettize further around
that ifdef.
So this patch actually does depend on __ARCH_IRQ_EXIT_IRQS_DISABLED. I
need to convert all archs to force this first. Then think about the
softirq.c cleanup once its done.
I wonder what's the right path to this, may be loop over archs until
they all have __ARCH_IRQ_EXIT_IRQS_DISABLED, then remove that? Sounds
like non-sense but the safest way at the same time.
>> @@ -320,20 +331,45 @@ void irq_enter(void)
>> __irq_enter();
>> }
>>
>> +/*
>> + * Invoce softirq's from irq_exit().
>> + *
>> + * Return the preempt offset: either IRQ_EXIT_OFFSET (if we
>> + * did nothing to the preemption count) or SOFTIRQ_OFFSET (in
>> + * case we did softirq processing and changed the preemption
>> + * count to account for that).
>> + */
>> static inline void invoke_softirq(void)
>> {
>> - if (!force_irqthreads) {
>> + /* Can we run softirq's at all? We migth be nesting interrupts */
>> + if (in_nesting_interrupt())
>> + return;
>
> We might also be in a softirq disabled region where it makes no sense
> to continue. So this should be
>
> in_nesting_interrupt() || in_softirq()
in_nesting_interrupt() takes care of that as well.
--
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