[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200324032004.GA13214@lenoir>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2020 04:20:05 +0100
From: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.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 05:31:05PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 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).
But, how are nested hardirq handled currently? Isn't it with hardirq_context counter?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists