On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 10:21:25AM +0530, Vineet Gupta wrote: > >> What I actually meant was is it OK for irq_work_queue_on() to be called > >> locally > >> (is this a sched bug/optimization(. Further if it is OK to be called, does > >> it need > >> to do behave more like irq_work_queue() i.e. call arch_irq_work_raise() or > >> arch_send_call_function_single_ipi() is expected to handle sending IPI to > >> self ! > > > > Right, so I'm not actually sure we started out with this requirement. > > But you're not the first to run into this, see: > > > > > > lkml.kernel.org/r/cajz5v0glanksuziqq25qtcynqeox43yd9jnju_xxwbdyajf...@mail.gmail.com > > > > Initially I think irq_work_queue_on() was only used remotely, but I > > think it makes sense to allow the current cpu, esp. since people seem to > > be using it like that. > > So it seems Russell's questions in the thread above stands still. IMO we need > to > massage irq_work_queue_on() to handle the case of called for local cpu. This > will > automatically take care of CONFIG_SMP kernel running on UP hardware.
Hmm, I missed that there was still an open question. Afaict the only thing that needs doing to the generic code is drop the CONFIG_SMP guard, no?
