On 2019-03-20 16:46:01 [-0700], Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> Thank you! I reverted v2 and applied this one with the same sort of
> update. Testing is going well thus far aside from my failing to add
> the required "=0" after the rcutree.use_softirq. I will probably not
> be the only one who will run afoul of this, so I updated the commit log
> and the documentation accordingly, as shown below.
perfect, thank you.
> Thanx, Paul
>
> diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h b/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h
> index f46b4af96ab9..b807204ffd83 100644
> --- a/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h
> +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h
> @@ -629,7 +609,10 @@ static void rcu_read_unlock_special(struct task_struct
> *t)
> /* Need to defer quiescent state until everything is enabled. */
> if (irqs_were_disabled) {
> /* Enabling irqs does not reschedule, so... */
> - raise_softirq_irqoff(RCU_SOFTIRQ);
> + if (!use_softirq)
that exclamation mark needs to go :/
> + raise_softirq_irqoff(RCU_SOFTIRQ);
> + else
> + invoke_rcu_core();
> } else {
> /* Enabling BH or preempt does reschedule, so... */
> set_tsk_need_resched(current);
Sebastian
