[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140125001936.GB9012@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2014 16:19:36 -0800
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-rt-users <linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Clark Williams <williams@...hat.com>,
"Luis Claudio R. Goncalves" <lclaudio@...g.org>,
John Kacur <jkacur@...hat.com>,
Mike Galbraith <bitbucket@...ine.de>,
Joakim Hernberg <jbh@...hemy.lu>,
Joe Korty <joe.korty@...r.com>,
Muli Baron <muli.baron@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RT v2] timer: Raise softirq if there's irq_work
On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 03:35:42PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Jan 2014 21:20:39 +0100
> Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de> wrote:
>
> > * Steven Rostedt | 2014-01-24 15:09:33 [-0500]:
> >
> > >[ Talking with Sebastian on IRC, it seems that doing the irq_work_run()
> > > from the interrupt in -rt is a bad thing. Here we simply raise the
> > > softirq if there's irq work to do. This too boots on my i7 ]
> >
> > It is okay in general because most of the users should not run in bare
> > interrupt context. The only exception here is the nohz_full_kick_work
> > thing.
>
> I know we discussed this on IRC, but I wanted to publicly state that
> the missing irq work callback was the RCU's rsp_wakeup() function.
Failing to invoke rsp_wakeup() when it was needed could potentially
stop RCU grace periods from happening, so having rsp_wakeup() happen
when it is needed is pretty important...
But I would guess that you knew that already. ;-)
Thanx, Paul
--
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