[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20151202105633.GQ3816@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2015 11:56:33 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...hip.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@...hat.com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/7] nohz: New tick dependency mask
On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 11:20:28PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > > + prev = fetch_or(dep, BIT_MASK(bit));
> > > + if (!prev) {
> > > + /*
> > > + * We need the IPIs to be sent from sane process context.
> >
> > Why ?
>
> Because posix timers code is all called with interrupts disabled and we can't
> send IPIs then.
>
> >
> > > + * The posix cpu timers are always set with irqs disabled.
> > > + */
> > > + schedule_work(&kick_all_work);
> > > + }
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +/*
> > > + * Set a global tick dependency. Lets do the wide IPI kick asynchronously
> > > + * for callers with irqs disabled.
> >
> > This seems to suggest you can call this with IRQs disabled
>
> Ah right, that's a misleading comment. We need to use the _delayed() version
> when interrupts are disabled.
Why can't you use tick_nohz_full_kick_cpu() for all that, which is
usable from IRQ context and avoid all that delayed muck?
--
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