On Fri, 25 Apr 2008, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
quoted text
> So per b) any nohz wake needs to be done with an interrupt _and_ all
> such interrupts must pass through irq_enter().
> 
> As far as I can tell this is not nessecarily true (or desired from a
> performance POV) for all platforms, imagine the core2 monitor/mwait idle
> that wakes up because of a memory write. This doesn't require an
> interrupt at all to wake up.
> 
> So, are we going to require all waking interrupts (IPIs and regular) to
> do the irq_enter/exit() dance and add the perhaps unneeded overhead to
> these paths and require the non-interrupt driven wake-ups like
> monitor/mwait to do the touch_softlockup_watchdog() themselves?

regular irqs need to go through irq_enter()/exit() in any case.

IPIs are border line. As long as none of the IPI code relies on
jiffies, touches timers ... we don't. But we are on the safe side if
we do.

quoted text
> Or,
> 
> Is Ingo's initial patch to make nohz_restart() also touch the softlockup
> watchdog the best fix (now that we understand what happens)?

Yes, we need it for mwait based wakeups which don't go through
interrupts at all.

Thanks,
	tglx
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/