Re: [PATCH 2/6] Add IRQ_TIME_ACCOUNTING, finer accounting of CPUirq time

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Mon, 2010-09-20 at 10:16 -0700, Venkatesh Pallipadi wrote:
> >> > You still do have the problem with local_bh_disable() though, since you
> >> > cannot distinguish between having bh disabled and processing softirq.
> >> >
> >> > So a hardirq that hits while you have bh disabled will inflate your
> >> > softirq time.

> >> Hmm, that bug is valid for CONFIG_VIRT_CPU_ACCOUNTING=y as well.
> >
> > And nobody ever noticed?
> >
> 
> Yes. I inherited the API from VIRT_CPU_ACCOUNTING along with this
> local_bh_disable bug. Agree that we need one extra bit to handle this
> case. I will take a stab at fixing this along with refresh of this
> patchset if no one else has beaten me to it until then. 

Make sure to only fix the softirq processing on the hardirq tail, not
the ksoftirqd one :-)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/