On Tue, Apr 07, 2015 at 01:47:16PM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Tue, 2015-04-07 at 13:23 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Mon, 6 Apr 2015, Thavatchai Makphaibulchoke wrote:
> >
> > > This patch fixes the problem that the ownership of a mutex acquired
> > > by an interrupt handler(IH) gets incorrectly attributed to the
> > > interrupted thread.
> >
> > An hard interrupt handler is not allowed to take a mutex. End of
> > story, nothing to fix here.
>
> Well, the patch that started this thread..
>
> timers-do-not-raise-softirq-unconditionally.patch
Aah, that is the problem..
@@ -1454,8 +1452,32 @@ static void run_timer_softirq(struct softirq_action *h)
*/
void run_local_timers(void)
{
+ struct tvec_base *base = __this_cpu_read(tvec_bases);
+
hrtimer_run_queues();
- raise_softirq(TIMER_SOFTIRQ);
+ /*
+ * We can access this lockless as we are in the timer
+ * interrupt. If there are no timers queued, nothing to do in
+ * the timer softirq.
+ */
+#ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT_FULL
+ if (!spin_do_trylock(&base->lock)) {
+ raise_softirq(TIMER_SOFTIRQ);
+ return;
+ }
+#endif
+ if (!base->active_timers)
+ goto out;
+
+ /* Check whether the next pending timer has expired */
+ if (time_before_eq(base->next_timer, jiffies))
+ raise_softirq(TIMER_SOFTIRQ);
+out:
+#ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT_FULL
+ rt_spin_unlock_after_trylock_in_irq(&base->lock);
+#endif
+ /* The ; ensures that gcc won't complain in the !RT case */
+ ;
}
That smells like something we should be able to do without a lock.
If we use {READ,WRITE}_ONCE() on those two fields (->active_timers and
->next_timer) we should be able to do this without the spinlock.
Races here aren't really a problem I think, if you manage to install a
timer at the current jiffy and have already missed the tick you're in
the same boat. You get to wait for the next tick.
--
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
