From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <stable-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:46268 "EHLO mail.kernel.org"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S1726535AbeHXWQz (ORCPT <rfc822;stable@vger.kernel.org>);
        Fri, 24 Aug 2018 18:16:55 -0400
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2018 20:41:04 +0200
From: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>
To: Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@ti.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Anna-Maria Gleixner <anna-maria@linutronix.de>,
        stable@vger.kernel.org, Tero Kristo <t-kristo@ti.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] nohz: Fix missing tick reprog while interrupting inline
 timer softirq
Message-ID: <20180824184103.GD2730@lerouge>
References: <1533077570-9169-1-git-send-email-frederic@kernel.org>
 <8ecb9229-4c14-6967-0863-15b47cefd251@ti.com>
 <20180824061750.GA20523@kroah.com>
 <alpine.DEB.2.21.1808240851420.1668@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
 <0d63c2bb-f75d-3f79-c19d-bb4ac9a00cd5@ti.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <0d63c2bb-f75d-3f79-c19d-bb4ac9a00cd5@ti.com>
Sender: stable-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <stable.vger.kernel.org>

On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 11:10:44AM -0500, Grygorii Strashko wrote:
> Yes. i do not see local_softirq_pending messages any more
> 
> But one question, just to clarify, after patch "nohz: Fix missing tick reprog while interrupting inline timer softirq"
> the tick_nohz_irq_exit() will be called few times in case of nested interrupts (min 2):
> gic_handle_irq
>  |- irq_exit
>     |- preempt_count_sub(HARDIRQ_OFFSET); 
>     |-__do_softirq 
> 	<irqs enabled>
> 	|- gic_handle_irq()
> 	   |- irq_exit()
> 		|- tick_irq_exit()
> 		   if (!in_irq())
> 			tick_nohz_irq_exit(); <-- [1]
>     |- tick_irq_exit()
> 	if (!in_irq())
> 		tick_nohz_irq_exit(); <-- [2]
> 
> Is it correct? in 4.14 tick_nohz_irq_exit() is much more complex then in LKML now,
> and this is hot path.

That's correct and it's indeed more costly in 4.14 as then the tick is going to be programmed
twice.