[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20171219153310.aq2rxw6umgyyku3p@linutronix.de>
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 16:33:10 +0100
From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@...com>,
linux-rt-users <linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [v4.14-rt][report] arm: run: stress-ng --class os --all 0 -t 5m
On 2017-12-19 10:28:39 [-0500], Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Dec 2017 16:04:18 +0100
> Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de> wrote:
>
> > >
> > > The above just seems wrong. local_irq_disable() should imply
> > > local_bh_disable(), as it doesn't let softirqs run either.
> >
> > Where does local_irq_disable() imply this?
>
> If it doesn't explicitly do so, it probably should. How can we have a
> softirq execute when irqs are disabled?
There are not. With local_bh_disable() the softirq will run on
local_bh_enable(). Without it (and with or without local_irq_disable())
the softirq won't run but wakeup the ksoftirq thread. We can't do the
wake while holding the hrtimer lock. This is not RT specific.
> -- Steve
Sebastian
Powered by blists - more mailing lists