Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1768720Ab2KOS4u (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Nov 2012 13:56:50 -0500 Received: from hrndva-omtalb.mail.rr.com ([71.74.56.122]:2216 "EHLO hrndva-omtalb.mail.rr.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1423636Ab2KOS4t (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Nov 2012 13:56:49 -0500 X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.0 cv=YP4dOG6x c=1 sm=0 a=rXTBtCOcEpjy1lPqhTCpEQ==:17 a=mNMOxpOpBa8A:10 a=xbK-PLPXO3cA:10 a=5SG0PmZfjMsA:10 a=Q9fys5e9bTEA:10 a=meVymXHHAAAA:8 a=zHN6p_ESxywA:10 a=g90VSIAhuBSVDwat0fwA:9 a=PUjeQqilurYA:10 a=jeBq3FmKZ4MA:10 a=rXTBtCOcEpjy1lPqhTCpEQ==:117 X-Cloudmark-Score: 0 X-Originating-IP: 74.67.115.198 Message-ID: <1353005806.18025.111.camel@gandalf.local.home> Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] irq_work: Warn if there's still work on cpu_down From: Steven Rostedt To: Frederic Weisbecker Cc: Ingo Molnar , LKML , Peter Zijlstra , Thomas Gleixner , Andrew Morton , Paul Gortmaker Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 13:56:46 -0500 In-Reply-To: References: <1352925457-15700-1-git-send-email-fweisbec@gmail.com> <1352925457-15700-8-git-send-email-fweisbec@gmail.com> <1352953617.18025.94.camel@gandalf.local.home> <1352997261.18025.103.camel@gandalf.local.home> <1353001964.18025.107.camel@gandalf.local.home> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-15" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.4.3-1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1361 Lines: 43 On Thu, 2012-11-15 at 19:12 +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > 2012/11/15 Steven Rostedt : > > If we are in nohz and there's still irq_work to be done when the idle > > task is about to go offline. Give a nasty warning. > > > > Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt > > > > Index: linux-rt.git/kernel/irq_work.c > > =================================================================== > > --- linux-rt.git.orig/kernel/irq_work.c > > +++ linux-rt.git/kernel/irq_work.c > > @@ -103,6 +103,9 @@ bool irq_work_needs_cpu(void) > > if (llist_empty(this_list)) > > return false; > > > > + /* All work should have been flushed before going offline */ > > + WARN_ON_ONCE(cpu_is_offline(smp_processor_id())); > > Should we return false in that case? I don't know what can happen if > we wait for one more tick while the CPU is offline and apic is > deactivated. > We can just let it go and find out :-) Heck, they get the warning, if the system crashes shortly afterwards, they know why. -- Steve > > + > > return true; > > } > > > > > > -- 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/