2013/2/26 Thomas Gleixner <t...@linutronix.de>: > > 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?
Probably. I'll try something. -- 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/
