> From: Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]>
> Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2020 1:58 PM
>
> On Thu, Aug 06, 2020 at 12:07:29PM +0800, Jiafei Pan wrote:
> > __raise_softirq_irqoff will update per-CPU mask of pending softirqs,
> > it need to be called in irq disabled context in order to keep it
> > atomic operation, otherwise it will be interrupted by hardware
> > interrupt, and per-CPU softirqs pending mask will be corrupted, the
> > result is there will be unexpected issue, for example hrtimer soft irq
> > will be losed and soft hrtimer will never be expire and handled.
> >
> > Adding irqs disabled checking here to provide warning in irqs enabled
> > context.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jiafei Pan <[email protected]>
> > ---
> > kernel/softirq.c | 5 +++++
> > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/softirq.c b/kernel/softirq.c index
> > bf88d7f62433..11f61e54a3ae 100644
> > --- a/kernel/softirq.c
> > +++ b/kernel/softirq.c
> > @@ -481,6 +481,11 @@ void raise_softirq(unsigned int nr)
> >
> > void __raise_softirq_irqoff(unsigned int nr) {
> > + /* This function can only be called in irq disabled context,
> > + * otherwise or_softirq_pending will be interrupted by hardware
> > + * interrupt, so that there will be unexpected issue.
> > + */
>
> Comment style is wrong, also I'm not sure the comment is really helpfull.
[Jiafei Pan] Thanks for your comments, yes, function name already indicate the
function
Should be called in irq off context, will remove the comment in next version.
>
> > + WARN_ON_ONCE(!irqs_disabled());
>
> lockdep_assert_irqs_disabled();
>
> > trace_softirq_raise(nr);
> > or_softirq_pending(1UL << nr);
> > }
