On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 10:07:39AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi Greg,
>
> On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 3:56 PM Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 5:06 PM Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > Commit 0a0e0829f990 ("nohz: Fix missing tick reprogram when interrupting an
> > > inline softirq") got backported to stable trees and now causes the NOHZ
> > > softirq pending warning to trigger. It's not an upstream issue as the NOHZ
> > > update logic has been changed there.
> > >
> > > The problem is when a softirq disabled section gets interrupted and on
> > > return from interrupt the tick/nohz state is evaluated, which then can
> > > observe pending soft interrupts. These soft interrupts are legitimately
> > > pending because they cannot be processed as long as soft interrupts are
> > > disabled and the interrupted code will correctly process them when soft
> > > interrupts are reenabled.
> > >
> > > Add a check for softirqs disabled to the pending check to prevent the
> > > warning.
> > >
> > > Reported-by: Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@xxxxxx>
> > > Reported-by: John Crispin <john@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Tested-by: Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@xxxxxx>
> > > Tested-by: John Crispin <john@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Cc: Anna-Maria Gleixner <anna-maria@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> > Fixes: 2d898915ccf4838c ("nohz: Fix missing tick reprogram when
> > interrupting an inline softirq")
> >
> > Issue in v4.14.x bisected to the above commit, and fixed by your patch.
> >
> > Tested-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> This issue is still present in v4.14.72. Can you please apply Thomas' fix?
Oops, sorry for the delay, now queued up.
greg k-h
