[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160919081043.GQ5016@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2016 10:10:43 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Wanpeng Li <wanpeng.li@...mail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/apic: Fix suspicious RCU usage in
smp_trace_call_function_interrupt
On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 10:58:04AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Sep 2016, Wanpeng Li wrote:
> > ---
> > arch/x86/include/asm/apic.h | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/apic.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/apic.h
> > index 1243577..71c1fe2 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/apic.h
> > +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/apic.h
> > @@ -650,8 +650,8 @@ static inline void entering_ack_irq(void)
> >
> > static inline void ipi_entering_ack_irq(void)
> > {
> > - ack_APIC_irq();
> > irq_enter();
> > + ack_APIC_irq();
> > }
>
> which makes ipi_entering_ack_irq() the same as entering_ack_irq() and
> therefor pointless.
entering_ack_irq() seems to use entering_irq() instead of irq_enter().
Which is close but not the same. This thing seems to also do
exit_idle().
Now, there's only a handfull of ipi_entering_ack_irq() users, and it
doesn't seem to make sense to me to only call exit_idle() on IPIs, why
don't we need to call exit_idle() on regular IRQs ?!
All in all, that stuff is crufty and needs a cleanup I'd say.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists