* 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. >After trying hard to figure out why my i7 box was locking up with the >new active_timers code, that does not run the timer softirq if there >are no active timers, I took an extra look at the softirq handler and >noticed that it doesn't just run timer softirqs, it also runs irq work. > >This was the bug that was locking up the system. It wasn't missing a >timer, it was missing irq work. By always doing the irq work callbacks, >the system boots fine. > >No need to check for defined(CONFIG_IRQ_WORK). When that's not set the >"irq_work_needs_cpu()" is a static inline that returns false. > >Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> Thank you Steven, this makes sense. Sebastian -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rt-users" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
