[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.02.1302261308550.22263@ionos>
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 13:15:08 +0100 (CET)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
cc: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
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 Fri, 22 Feb 2013, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 7:06 AM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
> >>
> >> I prefer to let you guys have the final word on this patch. Whether you
> >> apply it or not, I fear I'll never be entirely happy either way :)
> >> That's the sad fate of dealing with circular dependencies...
> >
> > plus the butt ugly softirq semantics or the lack thereof ...
>
> The softirq semantics are perfectly fine. Don't blame softirq for the
> fact that irq_exit() has had shit-for-brains for a long time.
>
> Just move the whole "invoke_softirq()" thing down to *after* the
> tick_nohz_irq_exit() stuff.
We can't move tick_nohz_irq_exit() before invoke_softirq() simply
because we need to take the timers into account for NOHZ and those can
change when the softirq code runs.
So no, we need an extra check after invoke_softirq() and the same is
true for RCU.
Thanks,
tglx
--
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