[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFzQ+7_oLgp6Evdn0yiJYO9psOpdMbZMy7goXktLsBYUYg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2013 11:24:26 -0800
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] irq: Cleanup context state transitions in irq_exit()
On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 10:21 AM, Frederic Weisbecker
<fweisbec@...il.com> wrote:
>
> But tick_nohz_irq_exit() may trigger the timer softirq itself.
Suggestion: merge it with the whole softirq handler.
The softirq code *already* knows about the whole "oops, one softirq
may trigger another" issue, and has a loop - with protection against
excess - for exactly this reason. See the whole "goto restart" thing.
And tick_nohz_irq_exit() really has very similar semantics to
softiq's, it's just "CPU is idle and no pending reschedule" instead of
a softirq. But the basic rules are the same ("only run this at the
top-level context when exiting the last irq").
So maybe the right thing to do is move the whole "goto restart" one
level up, and do softirq's and tick_nohz_irq_exit both inside that
loop.
Linus
--
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