On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 01:40:53AM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > re tick_nohz_task_switch() being placed wrong, it should probably be
> > placed before finish_lock_switch(). Something like so.
> >
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
> > index cf044580683c..5c92c959824f 100644
> > --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> > +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> > @@ -4084,6 +4084,7 @@ static struct rq *finish_task_switch(struct
> > task_struct *prev)
> > vtime_task_switch(prev);
> > perf_event_task_sched_in(prev, current);
> > finish_task(prev);
> > + tick_nohz_task_switch();
> > finish_lock_switch(rq);
> > finish_arch_post_lock_switch();
> > kcov_finish_switch(current);
> > @@ -4121,7 +4122,6 @@ static struct rq *finish_task_switch(struct
> > task_struct *prev)
> > put_task_struct_rcu_user(prev);
> > }
> >
> > - tick_nohz_task_switch();
>
> IIRC, we wanted to keep it outside rq lock because it shouldn't it...
But now you've created a window with IRQs on and cause additional IRQ
state changes.
If you're really worried about rq->lock, I suppose we can do:
rq_unlock(rq->lock);
tick_nohz_task_switch();
local_irq_enable();
(much like we do at the beginning of __schedule for RCU)
