From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S938262AbdLSJDt convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Dec 2017 04:03:49 -0500 Received: from Chamillionaire.breakpoint.cc ([146.0.238.67]:36258 "EHLO Chamillionaire.breakpoint.cc" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S966703AbdLSI6r (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Dec 2017 03:58:47 -0500 Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 09:58:44 +0100 From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Anna-Maria Gleixner , LKML , Ingo Molnar , Christoph Hellwig , keescook@chromium.org, John Stultz , Thomas Gleixner Subject: Re: [PATCH 17/25] hrtimer: Implementation of softirq hrtimer handling Message-ID: <20171219085843.l55fasrfdqdyta5z@breakpoint.cc> References: <20170831105725.809317030@linutronix.de> <20170831105826.921969670@linutronix.de> <20170927164025.GI17526@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT In-Reply-To: <20170927164025.GI17526@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net> User-Agent: NeoMutt/20171208 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org this is late I know… On 2017-09-27 18:40:26 [+0200], Peter Zijlstra wrote: > - removed superfluous local_bh_disable(), since local_irq_disable() > already implies much the same. it is not superfluous. > Please consider... > > @@ -1768,7 +1786,6 @@ int hrtimers_dead_cpu(unsigned int scpu) > BUG_ON(cpu_online(scpu)); > tick_cancel_sched_timer(scpu); > > - local_bh_disable(); > local_irq_disable(); > old_base = &per_cpu(hrtimer_bases, scpu); > new_base = this_cpu_ptr(&hrtimer_bases); > @@ -1796,7 +1813,6 @@ int hrtimers_dead_cpu(unsigned int scpu) > /* Check, if we got expired work to do */ > __hrtimer_peek_ahead_timers(); > local_irq_enable(); > - local_bh_enable(); > return 0; > } we need in there. That local_bh_disable() is required in order to let raise_softirq_irqoff() not do anything stupid in particular we need !in_interrupt() defer wakeup_softirqd() until local_bh_enable(). Otherwise wakeup_softirqd() might actually try to wakeup the process and go after the pi_lock which can't happen while holding cpu_base->lock. Sebastian