Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the tip tree

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 03:00:29AM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 01/20/2014 01:55 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > 
> > Ok, so I still don't get the problem of enabling interrupts early.
> > 
> > If we enable them early we can get interrupts; which afaict fall into
> > two groups, those that do and do not set NEED_RESCHED.
> > 
> > For those that do not set NEED_RESCHED, we'd have woken from MWAIT/HLT
> > and looped right back into it, so receiving those early -- before
> > actually calling MWAIT/HLT seems like a NO-OP.
> 
> The description for commit d331e739f5ad seems to indicate otherwise:
> 
>     Idle callbacks has some races when enter_idle() sets isidle and
> subsequent
>     interrupts that can happen on that CPU, before CPU goes to idle. Due
> to this,
>     an IDLE_END can get called before IDLE_START. To avoid these races,
> disable
>     interrupts before enter_idle and make sure that all idle routines do not
>     enable interrupts before entering idle.
> 
> This implies to me that once we have set isidle, if we take an interrupt
> we *have* to drop out of the idle routine.

I don't think that applies anymore; the generic idle loop calls
arch_cpu_idle_enter() before calling arch_cpu_idle() where we would do
the enable.

So in that sense its impossible to get arch_cpu_idle_exit() -- or rather
exit_idle() as called from the interrupts -- to happen before
arch_cpu_idle_enter().
--
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/