On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 07:45:45PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2019-06-28 10:30:11 [-0700], Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > I believe the .blocked field remains set even though we are not any more in a
> > > reader section because of deferred processing of the blocked lists that you
> > > mentioned yesterday.
> >
> > That can indeed happen. However, in current -rcu, that would mean
> > that .deferred_qs is also set, which (if in_irq()) would prevent
> > the raise_softirq_irqsoff() from being invoked. Which was why I was
> > asking the questions about whether in_irq() returns true within threaded
> > interrupts yesterday. If it does, I need to find if there is some way
> > of determining whether rcu_read_unlock_special() is being called from
> > a threaded interrupt in order to suppress the call to raise_softirq()
> > in that case.
>
> Please not that:
> | void irq_exit(void)
> | {
> |…
> in_irq() returns true
> | preempt_count_sub(HARDIRQ_OFFSET);
> in_irq() returns false
> | if (!in_interrupt() && local_softirq_pending())
> | invoke_softirq();
>
> -> invoke_softirq() does
> | if (!force_irqthreads) {
> | __do_softirq();
> | } else {
> | wakeup_softirqd();
> | }
>
In my traces which I shared previous email, the wakeup_softirqd() gets
called.
I thought force_irqthreads value is decided at boot time, so I got lost a bit
with your comment.
