Hi Thomas, On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 5:06 PM Thomas Gleixner <t...@linutronix.de> wrote: > Commit 0a0e0829f990 ("nohz: Fix missing tick reprogram when interrupting an > inline softirq") got backported to stable trees and now causes the NOHZ > softirq pending warning to trigger. It's not an upstream issue as the NOHZ > update logic has been changed there. > > The problem is when a softirq disabled section gets interrupted and on > return from interrupt the tick/nohz state is evaluated, which then can > observe pending soft interrupts. These soft interrupts are legitimately > pending because they cannot be processed as long as soft interrupts are > disabled and the interrupted code will correctly process them when soft > interrupts are reenabled. > > Add a check for softirqs disabled to the pending check to prevent the > warning. > > Reported-by: Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.stras...@ti.com> > Reported-by: John Crispin <j...@phrozen.org> > Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <t...@linutronix.de> > Tested-by: Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.stras...@ti.com> > Tested-by: John Crispin <j...@phrozen.org> > Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <frede...@kernel.org> > Cc: Ingo Molnar <mi...@kernel.org> > Cc: Anna-Maria Gleixner <anna-ma...@linutronix.de> > Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gre...@linuxfoundation.org> > Cc: sta...@vger.kernel.org
Fixes: 2d898915ccf4838c ("nohz: Fix missing tick reprogram when interrupting an inline softirq") Issue in v4.14.x bisected to the above commit, and fixed by your patch. Tested-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+rene...@glider.be> Gr{oetje,eeting}s, Geert -- Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- ge...@linux-m68k.org In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that. -- Linus Torvalds