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 <bigeasy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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-rt-users" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
