On Tue, 26 Feb 2013, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > 2013/2/26 Thomas Gleixner <t...@linutronix.de>: > > On Fri, 22 Feb 2013, Linus Torvalds wrote: > >> On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 7:06 AM, Thomas Gleixner <t...@linutronix.de> > >> wrote: > >> >> > >> >> I prefer to let you guys have the final word on this patch. Whether you > >> >> apply it or not, I fear I'll never be entirely happy either way :) > >> >> That's the sad fate of dealing with circular dependencies... > >> > > >> > plus the butt ugly softirq semantics or the lack thereof ... > >> > >> The softirq semantics are perfectly fine. Don't blame softirq for the > >> fact that irq_exit() has had shit-for-brains for a long time. > >> > >> Just move the whole "invoke_softirq()" thing down to *after* the > >> tick_nohz_irq_exit() stuff. > > > > We can't move tick_nohz_irq_exit() before invoke_softirq() simply > > because we need to take the timers into account for NOHZ and those can > > change when the softirq code runs. > > > > So no, we need an extra check after invoke_softirq() and the same is > > true for RCU. > > And what do you think about Linus's idea to move tick_nohz_irq_exit() > to do_softirq()? > This sounds feasible and a right place to do this, I hope that won't > uglify do_softirq() though. > I can try something.
Yeah, looks doable. the rcu stuff needs to go there as well, right? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
