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
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
On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 04:14:43PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>
> On Tue, 26 Feb 2013, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
>
> > 2013/2/26 Thomas Gleixner :
> > > On Fri, 22 Feb 2013, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > >> On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 7:06 AM, Thomas Gleixner
> > >> wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> I pre
2013/2/26 Thomas Gleixner :
>
> On Tue, 26 Feb 2013, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
>
>> 2013/2/26 Thomas Gleixner :
>> > On Fri, 22 Feb 2013, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>> >> On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 7:06 AM, Thomas Gleixner
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I prefer to let you guys have the final word on th
On Tue, 26 Feb 2013, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> 2013/2/26 Thomas Gleixner :
> > On Fri, 22 Feb 2013, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >> On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 7:06 AM, Thomas Gleixner
> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> I prefer to let you guys have the final word on this patch. Whether you
> >> >> apply it
2013/2/26 Thomas Gleixner :
> On Fri, 22 Feb 2013, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 7:06 AM, Thomas Gleixner 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 :)
>> >> Tha
On Fri, 22 Feb 2013, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 7:06 AM, Thomas Gleixner 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 ci
On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 10:21 AM, Frederic Weisbecker
wrote:
>
> But tick_nohz_irq_exit() may trigger the timer softirq itself.
Suggestion: merge it with the whole softirq handler.
The softirq code *already* knows about the whole "oops, one softirq
may trigger another" issue, and has a loop - wi
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 01:08:17PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 7:06 AM, Thomas Gleixner 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 fa
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 7:06 AM, Thomas Gleixner 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
On Fri, 22 Feb 2013, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 03:33:51PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > The minimal extra check at the end of irq_exit() is way better than
> > any other special cased workaround and the softirq stuff is really the
> > only thing which needs to be take
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 03:33:51PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Feb 2013, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > The irq code is run under HARDIRQ_OFFSET preempt offset until
> > we reach the softirq code. Then it's substracted, leaving the
> > preempt count to 0, whether we have pending soft
On Fri, 22 Feb 2013, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> The irq code is run under HARDIRQ_OFFSET preempt offset until
> we reach the softirq code. Then it's substracted, leaving the
> preempt count to 0, whether we have pending softirqs or not.
>
> Afterward, if we have softirqs to run, we'll run them u
13 matches
Mail list logo
