Re: [PATCH v3 1/5] genirq: Synchronize in-flight handlers during NMI teardown

[Thomas Gleixner]

On Mon, Sep 28 2026 at 09:14, Doug Anderson wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 4, 2026 at 8:26 AM Doug Anderson <dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 4, 2026 at 8:11 AM Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > Of course this is a regular global interrupt otherwise it couldn't be
>> > requested normally. So this sets IRQF_PERCPU (it has to otherwise
>> > request_nmi() would fail), but that looks like a hack to me.
>>
>> At least on GIC, promoting a regular global interrupt to NMI (or
>> pseudo-NMI) level is possible, and Mayank's use case here seems
>> legitimate. Any suggestions you have for making this look less like a
>> hack are appreciated! :-)
>
> Throwing an extra plea out here to see if we can make forward
> progress. IMO being able to make watchdog driver "bark" interrupts run
> at NMI (or pseudo-NMI) level is an important thing to do for
> debuggability of the kernel. It sounds as if there are no general
> objections to the idea. I guess the next step is to make this look
> less hacky. Is that something we could send patches for? Any hints for
> what you'd like this to look like would be greatly appreciated.

I think the objections have been layed out in course of the discussion, no?

> I'll also be in Prague next week for both Plumbers and ELCE, so I'd be
> happy to discuss this in person if that helps.

I'm going to be there, but I don't know about Marc.

Thanks,

        tglx