On 2021-09-22 01:45:18 [+0200], Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > > Also while at it, I'm asking again: traditionally softirqs could assume that > manipulating a local state was safe against !irq_count() code fiddling with > the same state on the same CPU. > > Now with preemptible softirqs, that assumption can be broken anytime. RCU was > fortunate enough to have a warning for that. But who knows how many issues like > this are lurking? If "local state" is modified then it is safe as long as it is modified within a local_bh_disable() section. And we are in this section while invoking a forced-threaded interrupt. The special part about RCU is that it is used in_irq() as part of core-code. > Thanks. Sebastian
