Re: [PATCH 05/13] rcu: Fix unraised IPI to timekeeping CPU

[Frederic Weisbecker]

On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 06:22:40AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > 
> > Exactly, the interrupt alone is sufficient and the tick is reevaluated
> > on irq_exit().
> 
> But if that is the case, why do you need the change to scheduler_ipi()
> in patch 07/13?  Just having received any sort of IPI should suffice.

Because scheduler_ipi() conditionally calls irq_enter() and irq_exit()
(I wonder if that's a good idea btw, is that here to deal with spurious
scheduler IPIs of some sort?)

And it's convenient because it can be called anywhere, even when irqs
are disabled, unlike kernel/smp.c IPIs.

But I agree it's kind of an abuse of scheduler_ipi() here. Well I'm going
to develop that in my answers to Peter as he has concerns precisely about that.

Thanks.
--
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/