On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 10:21:43AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> [ Added Peter Z. and Paul ]
> > void smp_trace_reschedule_interrupt(struct pt_regs *regs)
> > {
> > ack_APIC_irq();
> > + rcu_irq_enter();
> > trace_reschedule_entry(RESCHEDULE_VECTOR);
> > __smp_reschedule_interrupt();
> > trace_reschedule_exit(RESCHEDULE_VECTOR);
> > + rcu_irq_exit();
>
> The question is, should we add normal irq_enter/exit here? As that
> should be OK to nest. There's a comment in scheduler_ipi():
>
> /*
> * Not all reschedule IPI handlers call irq_enter/irq_exit, since
> * traditionally all their work was done from the interrupt return
> * path. Now that we actually do some work, we need to make sure
> * we do call them.
> *
> * Some archs already do call them, luckily irq_enter/exit nest
> * properly.
> *
> * Arguably we should visit all archs and update all handlers,
> * however a fair share of IPIs are still resched only so this would
> * somewhat pessimize the simple resched case.
> */
>
> just before it calls irq_enter(). Seems that not calling irq_enter() for
> the reschedule ipi interrupt is more of a legacy thing. It also states
> that its OK for an arch to call irq_enter() before calling this as it
> can nest. I wonder if we should invest time in fixing all archs and
> remove this irq_enter? But that's out of scope for this change.
That comment also states why I never did the arch sweep; doing
irq_enter()/irq_exit() for the pure empty reschedule interrupt makes it
more expensive.
Back when I introduced scheduler_ipi() I measured the amount of pure
resched interrupts (no schedule_ipi() content, pure interrupt return
path work) vs actually doing something in schedule_ipi() and found a
significant number of interrupts were 'pure'.
Things might have changed; but you'd better remeasure if you want to go
sweep the arch tree.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
