[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200323163105.GM2452@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2020 17:31:05 +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 1/3] lockdep/irq: Be more strict about IRQ-threadable
code end
On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 04:30:40PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 02:53:20PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 04:32:05AM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > > --- a/kernel/irq/handle.c
> > > +++ b/kernel/irq/handle.c
> > > @@ -144,18 +144,24 @@ irqreturn_t __handle_irq_event_percpu(struct irq_desc *desc, unsigned int *flags
> > >
> > > for_each_action_of_desc(desc, action) {
> > > irqreturn_t res;
> > > + bool threadable;
> > >
> > > /*
> > > * If this IRQ would be threaded under force_irqthreads, mark it so.
> > > */
> > > - if (irq_settings_can_thread(desc) &&
> > > - !(action->flags & (IRQF_NO_THREAD | IRQF_PERCPU | IRQF_ONESHOT)))
> > > + threadable = (irq_settings_can_thread(desc) &&
> > > + !(action->flags & (IRQF_NO_THREAD | IRQF_PERCPU | IRQF_ONESHOT)));
> > > +
> > > + if (threadable)
> > > trace_hardirq_threaded();
> > >
> > > trace_irq_handler_entry(irq, action);
> > > res = action->handler(irq, action->dev_id);
> > > trace_irq_handler_exit(irq, action, res);
> > >
> > > + if (threadable)
> > > + trace_hardirq_unthreaded();
> >
> > AFAICT this doesn't work for nested IRQ handlers.
>
> So current->hardirq_threaded should be a counter perhaps?
Yeah, see how the old code used the hardirq_context counter for exactly
that. Also note how the old code was actually cheaper than this
(minimally, but still).
Powered by blists - more mailing lists