On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 03:35:42PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Jan 2014 21:20:39 +0100
> Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bige...@linutronix.de> wrote:
>
> > * Steven Rostedt | 2014-01-24 15:09:33 [-0500]:
> >
> > >[ Talking with Sebastian on IRC, it seems that doing the irq_work_run()
> > > from the interrupt in -rt is a bad thing. Here we simply raise the
> > > softirq if there's irq work to do. This too boots on my i7 ]
> >
> > It is okay in general because most of the users should not run in bare
> > interrupt context. The only exception here is the nohz_full_kick_work
> > thing.
>
> I know we discussed this on IRC, but I wanted to publicly state that
> the missing irq work callback was the RCU's rsp_wakeup() function.
Failing to invoke rsp_wakeup() when it was needed could potentially
stop RCU grace periods from happening, so having rsp_wakeup() happen
when it is needed is pretty important...
But I would guess that you knew that already. ;-)
Thanx, Paul
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
