[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140131121104.382942cc@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2014 12:11:04 -0500
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
tglx@...utronix.de,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Clark Williams <williams@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] timer: really raise softirq if there is irq_work to
do
On Fri, 31 Jan 2014 12:07:57 -0500
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
> diff --git a/kernel/timer.c b/kernel/timer.c
> index 106968f..426d114 100644
> --- a/kernel/timer.c
> +++ b/kernel/timer.c
> @@ -1461,18 +1461,20 @@ void run_local_timers(void)
> * the timer softirq.
> */
> #ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT_FULL
> + /* On RT, irq work runs from softirq */
> + if (irq_work_needs_cpu()) {
> + raise_softirq(TIMER_SOFTIRQ);
> + return;
> + }
> +
> if (!spin_do_trylock(&base->lock)) {
> raise_softirq(TIMER_SOFTIRQ);
> return;
> }
> #endif
Note, I debated about doing:
if (irq_work_needs_cpu() ||
!spin_do_trylock(&base->lock)) {
raise_softirq(TIMER_SOFTIRQ);
return;
}
instead, which is pretty much the same code. But I find it rather ugly,
and does not read as well. I haven't looked at the disassembly, but I
would hope that gcc would make my original version have the same result
as this one.
-- Steve
--
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