On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 07:55:06PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Feb 2013, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 04:14:43PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, 26 Feb 2013, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > > > 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?
> >
> > If it does, it needs to do so in such a way that rcu_irq_enter() and
> > rcu_irq_exit() nest properly. One area of concern is the force_irqthreads
> > case, skips calling do_softirq(). Another area of concern is the
> > __ARCH_IRQ_EXIT_IRQS_DISABLED case, which calls __do_softirq() rather
> > than do_softirq().
>
> That's sorted already. We disable interrupts in irq_exit().
>
> > Or am I missing some adjustment that is to be made when moving
> > rcu_irq_exit()
> > to do_softirq()?
>
> Yeah, we need an extra parameter or such, so the other callers of
> __do_softirq() don't mess with it.
>
> I also noticed that rcu_irq_enter/exit needs to be symetric and the
> NOHZ code will get confused as well if we call it asymetric.
Exactly!
Thanx, Paul
> So that will become even more ugly than the extra check at the end of
> irq_exit().
>
> Thanks,
>
> tglx
>
>
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
