Re: [PATCH 17/25] hrtimer: Implementation of softirq hrtimer handling

[Anna-Maria Gleixner]

On Tue, 19 Dec 2017, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

> On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 09:58:44AM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> > this is late I knowâ
> > 
> > On 2017-09-27 18:40:26 [+0200], Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > >  - removed superfluous local_bh_disable(), since local_irq_disable()
> > >    already implies much the same.
> > 
> > it is not superfluous.
> > 
> > > Please consider...
> > > 
> > > @@ -1768,7 +1786,6 @@ int hrtimers_dead_cpu(unsigned int scpu)
> > >  	BUG_ON(cpu_online(scpu));
> > >  	tick_cancel_sched_timer(scpu);
> > >  
> > > -	local_bh_disable();
> > >  	local_irq_disable();
> > >  	old_base = &per_cpu(hrtimer_bases, scpu);
> > >  	new_base = this_cpu_ptr(&hrtimer_bases);
> > > @@ -1796,7 +1813,6 @@ int hrtimers_dead_cpu(unsigned int scpu)
> > >  	/* Check, if we got expired work to do */
> > >  	__hrtimer_peek_ahead_timers();
> > >  	local_irq_enable();
> > > -	local_bh_enable();
> > >  	return 0;
> > >  }
> > 
> > we need in there. That local_bh_disable() is required in order to let
> > raise_softirq_irqoff() not do anything stupid in particular we need
> > !in_interrupt() defer wakeup_softirqd() until local_bh_enable().
> > Otherwise wakeup_softirqd() might actually try to wakeup the process and
> > go after the pi_lock which can't happen while holding cpu_base->lock.
> 
> Argh, that's horrible and definitely needs a comment.
> 

will add it in v4 with a comment.

Anna-Maria