From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Paul McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [patch V2 4/9] softirq: Make softirq control and processing RT aware
Date: Mon, 07 Dec 2020 16:08:04 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <871rg17iy3.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20201207141609.GE122233@lothringen>
On Mon, Dec 07 2020 at 15:16, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 04, 2020 at 06:01:55PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> +void __local_bh_disable_ip(unsigned long ip, unsigned int cnt)
>> +{
>> + unsigned long flags;
>> + int newcnt;
>> +
>> + WARN_ON_ONCE(in_hardirq());
>> +
>> + /* First entry of a task into a BH disabled section? */
>> + if (!current->softirq_disable_cnt) {
>> + if (preemptible()) {
>> + local_lock(&softirq_ctrl.lock);
>> + /* Required to meet the RCU bottomhalf requirements. */
>> + rcu_read_lock();
>> + } else {
>> + DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON(this_cpu_read(softirq_ctrl.cnt));
>
> So, to be clear this adds a new constraint where we can't call
> local_bh_disable() inside a preempt disabled section? I guess the rest of the
> RT code chased all the new offenders :-)
There are not that many.
>> + }
>> + }
>> +
>> + /*
>> + * Track the per CPU softirq disabled state. On RT this is per CPU
>> + * state to allow preemption of bottom half disabled sections.
>> + */
>> + newcnt = __this_cpu_add_return(softirq_ctrl.cnt, cnt);
>> + /*
>> + * Reflect the result in the task state to prevent recursion on the
>> + * local lock and to make softirq_count() & al work.
>> + */
>> + current->softirq_disable_cnt = newcnt;
>> +
>> + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_TRACE_IRQFLAGS) && newcnt == cnt) {
>> + raw_local_irq_save(flags);
>> + lockdep_softirqs_off(ip);
>> + raw_local_irq_restore(flags);
>> + }
>> +}
>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(__local_bh_disable_ip);
>> +
> [...]
>> +
>> +void __local_bh_enable_ip(unsigned long ip, unsigned int cnt)
>> +{
>> + bool preempt_on = preemptible();
>> + unsigned long flags;
>> + u32 pending;
>> + int curcnt;
>> +
>> + WARN_ON_ONCE(in_irq());
>> + lockdep_assert_irqs_enabled();
>> +
>> + local_irq_save(flags);
>> + curcnt = this_cpu_read(softirq_ctrl.cnt);
>
> __this_cpu_read() ?
Yes.
>> +
>> + /*
>> + * If this is not reenabling soft interrupts, no point in trying to
>> + * run pending ones.
>> + */
>> + if (curcnt != cnt)
>> + goto out;
>
> I guess you could move the local_irq_save() here?
Indeed.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-12-07 15:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 38+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-12-04 17:01 [patch V2 0/9] softirq: Make it RT aware Thomas Gleixner
2020-12-04 17:01 ` [patch V2 1/9] softirq: Add RT specific softirq accounting Thomas Gleixner
2020-12-07 13:06 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2020-12-04 17:01 ` [patch V2 2/9] irqtime: Make accounting correct on RT Thomas Gleixner
2020-12-07 0:23 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2020-12-07 0:57 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-12-07 1:14 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2020-12-07 13:27 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2020-12-07 14:44 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-12-04 17:01 ` [patch V2 3/9] softirq: Move various protections into inline helpers Thomas Gleixner
2020-12-07 13:37 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2020-12-04 17:01 ` [patch V2 4/9] softirq: Make softirq control and processing RT aware Thomas Gleixner
2020-12-07 14:16 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2020-12-07 15:08 ` Thomas Gleixner [this message]
2020-12-08 0:08 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2020-12-09 10:11 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-12-09 12:36 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-12-09 12:42 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-12-09 13:30 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-12-09 10:34 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-12-04 17:01 ` [patch V2 5/9] tick/sched: Prevent false positive softirq pending warnings on RT Thomas Gleixner
2020-12-08 12:23 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2020-12-04 17:01 ` [patch V2 6/9] rcu: Prevent false positive softirq warning " Thomas Gleixner
2020-12-04 17:59 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-12-04 17:01 ` [patch V2 7/9] softirq: Replace barrier() with cpu_relax() in tasklet_unlock_wait() Thomas Gleixner
2020-12-07 11:39 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-12-07 15:21 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-12-04 17:01 ` [patch V2 8/9] tasklets: Use static inlines for stub implementations Thomas Gleixner
2020-12-04 17:02 ` [patch V2 9/9] tasklets: Prevent kill/unlock_wait deadlock on RT Thomas Gleixner
2020-12-07 11:47 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-12-07 14:00 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2020-12-07 14:27 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-12-07 17:55 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-12-07 15:22 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-12-07 15:39 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2020-12-07 17:49 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-12-07 17:50 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-12-06 10:05 ` [patch V2 0/9] softirq: Make it RT aware Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
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=871rg17iy3.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de \
--to=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=bigeasy@linutronix.de \
--cc=frederic@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=paulmck@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox