On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 12:59:59AM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 03:10:21PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > --- a/kernel/softirq.c
> > +++ b/kernel/softirq.c
> > @@ -746,13 +746,23 @@ void irq_exit(void)
> > #endif
> >
> > account_irq_exit_time(current);
> > - trace_hardirq_exit();
> > sub_preempt_count(HARDIRQ_OFFSET);
> > - if (!in_interrupt() && local_softirq_pending())
> > + if (!in_interrupt() && local_softirq_pending()) {
> > + /*
> > + * Temp. disable hardirq context so as not to confuse lockdep;
> > + * otherwise it might think we're running softirq handler from
> > + * hardirq context.
> > + *
> > + * Should probably sort this someplace else..
> > + */
> > + trace_hardirq_exit();
> > invoke_softirq();
> > + trace_hardirq_enter();
> > + }
> >
> > tick_irq_exit();
> > rcu_irq_exit();
> > + trace_hardirq_exit();
>
> Looks like a change we really want!
Yeah, let me stare at the softirq mess again to see if there's anything
better/prettier we can do.
--
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/
