On 2017-12-19 10:28:39 [-0500], Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Tue, 19 Dec 2017 16:04:18 +0100 > Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > The above just seems wrong. local_irq_disable() should imply > > > local_bh_disable(), as it doesn't let softirqs run either. > > > > Where does local_irq_disable() imply this? > > If it doesn't explicitly do so, it probably should. How can we have a > softirq execute when irqs are disabled?
There are not. With local_bh_disable() the softirq will run on local_bh_enable(). Without it (and with or without local_irq_disable()) the softirq won't run but wakeup the ksoftirq thread. We can't do the wake while holding the hrtimer lock. This is not RT specific. > -- Steve Sebastian
