lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Feb]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] kprobes: Fix to delay the kprobes jump optimization
On Fri, Feb 19, 2021 at 11:45:39AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 19, 2021 at 02:14:29PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Fri, 19 Feb 2021 10:18:11 -0800
> > "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > > We can further prevent entry into dyntick-idle state until
> > > the ksoftirqd kthreads have been spawned, which means that if softirq
> > > handlers must be deferred, they will be resumed within one jiffy by the
> > > next scheduler-clock interrupt.
> >
> > Why not just prevent entry into dyntick-idle state until the system is
> > finished booting? As you said; There should be no latency-sensitive
> > applications running, until after we started the system.
>
> Exactly, and that is the effect of patch to rcu_needs_cpu() that I just
> now posted.
>
> Ah, your point is that if the tick keeps running, there is no need to
> modify softirq? Good point, and I will test that, thank you!!!

But sadly keeping the tick on without also modifying softirq still
results in a hang. The problem is that when the kernel is booted with
threadirqs=1, invoke_softirq() will avoid ever running the softirq
handlers on the backside of an interrupt.

So is this where Sebastian tells me that some -rt transformation can
result in locking-based deadlocks if softirq handlers are ever run on
the backside of an interrupt? ;-)

Thanx, Paul

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-02-19 21:07    [W:0.109 / U:0.116 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site