[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140513204802.GJ2485@laptop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 22:48:02 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Kevin Hilman <khilman@...aro.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] irq_work: Let arch tell us if it can raise irq work
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 09:33:29PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 07:09:42PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 04:38:37PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > > We prepare for executing the full nohz kick through an irq work. But
> > > if we do this as is, we'll run into conflicting tick locking: the tick
> > > holds the hrtimer lock and the nohz kick may do so too.
> >
> > It does? How does the tick end up holding that lock?
> >
> > Normal hrtimer callbacks run without holding the hrtimer lock -- I made
> > it so.
> >
> > This means tick_sched_timer() is called without hrtimer lock, and I
> > don't see it taking it anywhere in tick_sched_do_timer() or
> > tick_sched_handle().
>
> Check hrtimer_interrupt(), it takes the per cpu base->lock.
check __run_hrtimer() which drops base->lock over calling ->function.
--
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