From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@kernel.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: arnd@arndb.de, anna-maria@linutronix.de, frederic@kernel.org,
luto@kernel.org, mingo@redhat.com, juri.lelli@redhat.com,
vincent.guittot@linaro.org, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com,
rostedt@goodmis.org, bsegall@google.com, mgorman@suse.de,
vschneid@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
oliver.sang@intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/6] entry,hrtimer: Push reprogramming timers into the interrupt return path
Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2026 00:28:13 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87v7ge4tf6.ffs@tglx> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260202163355.GI1395266@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
On Mon, Feb 02 2026 at 17:33, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 02, 2026 at 03:37:13PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 21 2026 at 17:20, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> > while (ti_work & EXIT_TO_USER_MODE_WORK_LOOP) {
>> >
>> > + /*
>> > + * If hrtimer need re-arming, do so before enabling IRQs,
>> > + * except when a reschedule is needed, in that case schedule()
>> > + * will do this.
>> > + */
>> > + if ((ti_work & (_TIF_NEED_RESCHED |
>> > + _TIF_NEED_RESCHED_LAZY |
>> > + _TIF_HRTIMER_REARM)) == _TIF_HRTIMER_REARM)
>> > + hrtimer_rearm();
>>
>> Two things I'm not convinced that they are handled correctly:
>>
>> 1) Interrupts
>>
>> After reenabling interrupts and before reaching schedule() an
>> interrupt comes in and runs soft interrupt processing for a while
>> on the way back, which delays the update until that processing
>> completes.
>
> So the basic thing looks like:
>
> <USER-MODE>
> irqentry_enter()
> run_irq_on_irqstack_cond()
> if (user_mode() || hardirq_stack_inuse)
> irq_enter_rcu();
> func_c();
> irq_exit_rcu()
> __irq_exit_rcu()
> invoke_softirq()
> irqentry_exit()
> irqentry_exit_to_user_mode()
> irqentry_exit_to_user_mode_prepare()
> __exit_to_user_mode_prepare()
> exit_to_user_mode_loop()
> ...here...
>
> So a nested IRQ at this point will have !user_mode(), but I think it can
> still end up in softirqs due to that hardirq_stack_inuse. Should we
> perhaps make sure only user_mode() ends up in softirqs?
All interrupts independent of the mode they hit are ending up in
irq_exit_rcu() and therefore in __irq_exit_rcu()
run_irq_on_irqstack_cond()
if (user_mode() || hardirq_stack_inuse)
// Stay on user or hardirq stack
irq_enter_rcu();
func_c();
irq_exit_rcu()
else
// MAGIC ASM to switch to hardirq stack
call irq_enter_rcu
call func_c
call irq_exit_rcu
The only reason why invoke_softirq() won't be called is when the
interrupt hits into the softirq processing region of the previous
interrupt, which means it's already on the hardirq stack.
But looking at this there is already a problem without interrupt
nesting:
irq_enter_rcu();
timer_interrupt()
hrtimer_interrupt()
delay_rearm();
irq_exit_rcu()
__irq_exit_rcu()
invoke_softirq() <- Here
Soft interrupts can run for quite some time, which means this already
can cause timers being delayed for way too long. I think in
__irq_exit_rcu() you want to do:
if (!in_interrupt() && local_softirq_pending()) {
hrtimer_rearm();
invoke_softirq();
}
Thanks,
tglx
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-02-02 23:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-01-21 16:20 [PATCH v2 0/6] hrtimer/sched: Improve hrtick Peter Zijlstra
2026-01-21 16:20 ` [PATCH v2 1/6] sched/eevdf: Fix HRTICK duration Peter Zijlstra
2026-01-22 10:53 ` Juri Lelli
2026-02-05 8:38 ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-01-21 16:20 ` [PATCH v2 2/6] hrtimer: Optimize __hrtimer_start_range_ns() Peter Zijlstra
2026-01-22 11:00 ` Juri Lelli
2026-02-02 12:28 ` Thomas Gleixner
2026-01-21 16:20 ` [PATCH v2 3/6] hrtimer,sched: Add fuzzy hrtimer mode for HRTICK Peter Zijlstra
2026-01-22 13:12 ` Juri Lelli
2026-01-23 20:04 ` Steven Rostedt
2026-02-02 14:02 ` Thomas Gleixner
2026-01-21 16:20 ` [PATCH v2 4/6] hrtimer: Re-arrange hrtimer_interrupt() Peter Zijlstra
2026-02-02 14:05 ` Thomas Gleixner
2026-01-21 16:20 ` [PATCH v2 5/6] entry,hrtimer: Push reprogramming timers into the interrupt return path Peter Zijlstra
2026-01-23 20:08 ` Steven Rostedt
2026-01-23 21:04 ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-02-02 14:37 ` Thomas Gleixner
2026-02-02 16:33 ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-02-02 23:28 ` Thomas Gleixner [this message]
2026-02-03 8:14 ` Thomas Gleixner
2026-02-04 13:58 ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-01-21 16:20 ` [PATCH v2 6/6] sched: Default enable HRTICK Peter Zijlstra
2026-01-21 22:24 ` Phil Auld
2026-01-22 11:40 ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-01-22 12:31 ` Phil Auld
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=87v7ge4tf6.ffs@tglx \
--to=tglx@kernel.org \
--cc=anna-maria@linutronix.de \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=bsegall@google.com \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=frederic@kernel.org \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=luto@kernel.org \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=oliver.sang@intel.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
--cc=vschneid@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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox