[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200323140220.GK2452@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2020 15:02:20 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
"Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/3] lockdep: Merge hardirq_threaded and irq_config
together
On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 04:32:06AM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> These fields describe the same state: a code block running in hardirq
> that might be threaded under specific configurations.
>
> Merge them together in the same field. Also rename the result as
> "hardirq_threadable" as we are talking about a possible state and not
> an actual one.
What isn't instantly obvious is that they cannot overlap. For instance
mainline with force threaded interrupt handlers on, can't that have the
irq_work nest inside a threaded handler ?
I *think* it just about works out, but it definitely wants a little more
than this.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists