Re: [PATCH] nohz: Make tick_nohz_irq_exit() irq safe

[Frederic Weisbecker]

2013/2/21 Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> On Wed, 20 Feb 2013, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
>> 2013/2/20 Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>> > That's not a fix. That's an hack.
>>
>> I know it looks that way. That's because it's a pure regression fix,
>> minimal for backportability.
>>
>> I'm distinguishing two different things here: the fact that some archs
>> can call irq_exit() with interrupts enabled which is a global design
>> problem, and the fact that tick_nohz_irq_exit() was safe against that
>> until 3.2 when I broke it with a commit of mine.
>>
>> My goal was basically to restore that protection in a minimal commit
>> such that we can backport the regression fix, then deal with
>> __ARCH_IRQ_EXIT_IRQS_DISABLED afterward, since it requires some more
>> invasive changes.
>>
>> >> A saner long term solution will be to remove
>> >> __ARCH_IRQ_EXIT_IRQS_DISABLED.
>> >
>> > We really want to enforce that interrupt disabled condition for
>> > calling irq_exit(). So why make this exclusive to tick_nohz_irq_exit()?
>>
>> I need a fix that I can backport. Is the below fine with a stable tag?
>> It looks a bit too invasive for the single regression involved.
>
> I think that's fine as it's obviously correct and not diluting the
> real underlying issue of the __ARCH_IRQ_EXIT_IRQS_DISABLED insanity.

Ok fine. Do you plan to commit your proposed change then?
--
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/