From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
peterz@infradead.org, paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc: linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
tglx@linutronix.de, Clark Williams <williams@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] timer: really raise softirq if there is irq_work to do
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2014 20:26:54 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <52EBF8FE.3080608@linutronix.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140131125719.73340f6e@gandalf.local.home>
On 01/31/2014 06:57 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> In vanilla Linux, irq_work_run() is called from update_process_times()
> when it is called from the timer interrupt. In -rt, there's reasons we
and in vanilla Linux some architectures (like x86 or sparc to name just
a few) overwrite arch_irq_work_raise() which means they provide
their "own" interrupt like callback. That means on those architectures
irq_work_run() gets invoked twice: once via update_process_times() and
via and once the custom interface.
So my question to the original inventor of this code: Peter, do we
really need that arch specific callback? Wouldn't one be enough? Is it
that critical that it can't wait to the next timer tick?
Sebastian
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-01-31 19:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-01-31 14:34 [PATCH 1/2] irq_work: allow certain work in hard irq context Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2014-01-31 14:34 ` [PATCH 2/2] timer: really raise softirq if there is irq_work to do Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2014-01-31 17:07 ` Steven Rostedt
2014-01-31 17:11 ` Steven Rostedt
2014-01-31 17:42 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-01-31 17:57 ` Steven Rostedt
2014-01-31 19:03 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-01-31 19:26 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior [this message]
2014-01-31 19:34 ` Steven Rostedt
2014-01-31 19:48 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2014-01-31 19:56 ` Steven Rostedt
2014-01-31 20:05 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-01-31 20:23 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2014-01-31 20:29 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-01-31 19:54 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-01-31 19:06 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2014-02-02 4:22 ` [PATCH 1/2] irq_work: allow certain work in hard irq context Mike Galbraith
2014-02-02 20:10 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2014-02-03 2:43 ` Mike Galbraith
2014-02-03 2:43 ` Mike Galbraith
2014-02-03 4:00 ` Mike Galbraith
2014-02-03 4:00 ` Mike Galbraith
2014-02-03 8:31 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2014-02-03 9:26 ` Mike Galbraith
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=52EBF8FE.3080608@linutronix.de \
--to=bigeasy@linutronix.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=williams@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.