On Thu, Sep 02, 2021 at 11:51:15PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> Paul,
>
> On Wed, Aug 18 2021 at 10:56, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 02:02:17PM -0300, Fabio Estevam wrote:
> >> On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 1:29 PM Fabio Estevam <festevam@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> > On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 12:43 PM Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > I believe that you need this commit (and possibly some prerequsites):
> >> > >
> >> > > 47c218dcae65 ("tick/sched: Prevent false positive softirq pending warnings on RT")
> >> > >
> >> > > Adding Qais on CC for his thoughts.
> >> >
> >> > Thanks for the suggestion, but I am running 5.13.11, which already
> >> > contains this commit.
> >> >
> >> > Any extra logs I should capture to help us understand the problem?
> >>
> >> In case it helps, I followed your suggestion from:
> >> https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/12/10/676
> >>
> >> With the debug patch and suggested command line, I get the following log:
> >> https://pastebin.com/raw/X96zKw7i
> >
> > And it turns out that I am also seeing it in v5.14-rc2, just a lot less
> > frequently than earlier. I have seen three instances of handler #02
> > (NET_TX_SOFTIRQ?) over the past month or so while you are seeing handler
> > #08 (BLOCK_SOFTIRQ?), in case that makes a difference.
>
> Huch? #02 is TIMER_SOFTIRQ and #08 is NET_TX_SOFTIRQ.
Idiot here was forgetting that the #02 represents bit 1 (as you say,
TIMER_SOFTIRQ) rather than numeral 2. Ditto for the #08. :-/
Thanx, Paul
