From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Paul E. McKenney" Subject: Re: [PATCH RT v2] timer: Raise softirq if there's irq_work Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2014 16:19:36 -0800 Message-ID: <20140125001936.GB9012@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <20140124145157.1f30d447@gandalf.local.home> <20140124150933.22d8c20a@gandalf.local.home> <20140124202039.GA32662@linutronix.de> <20140124153542.6a92ef27@gandalf.local.home> Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior , LKML , linux-rt-users , Thomas Gleixner , Clark Williams , "Luis Claudio R. Goncalves" , John Kacur , Mike Galbraith , Joakim Hernberg , Joe Korty , Muli Baron To: Steven Rostedt Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20140124153542.6a92ef27@gandalf.local.home> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-rt-users.vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 03:35:42PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Fri, 24 Jan 2014 21:20:39 +0100 > Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > > > * Steven Rostedt | 2014-01-24 15:09:33 [-0500]: > > > > >[ Talking with Sebastian on IRC, it seems that doing the irq_work_run() > > > from the interrupt in -rt is a bad thing. Here we simply raise the > > > softirq if there's irq work to do. This too boots on my i7 ] > > > > It is okay in general because most of the users should not run in bare > > interrupt context. The only exception here is the nohz_full_kick_work > > thing. > > I know we discussed this on IRC, but I wanted to publicly state that > the missing irq work callback was the RCU's rsp_wakeup() function. Failing to invoke rsp_wakeup() when it was needed could potentially stop RCU grace periods from happening, so having rsp_wakeup() happen when it is needed is pretty important... But I would guess that you knew that already. ;-) Thanx, Paul