Subject: Re: [PATCH] hrtimer, softirq: Fix hrtimer->softirq trampoline

From: Wei Yongjun <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Feb 2010 09:47:38 +0800

Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-02-02 at 08:51 -0500, Yury Polyanskiy wrote:
>
> The original email had more information:
>
>   
>> {IN-HARDIRQ-W} state was registered at:
>>   [<c04718dc>] __lock_acquire+0xa9c/0x1890
>>   [<c047274f>] lock_acquire+0x7f/0xf0
>>   [<c0762958>] _raw_spin_lock+0x38/0x50
>>   [<c072b5ca>] xfrm_timer_handler+0x3a/0x260
>>   [<c0447d9d>] __hrtimer_tasklet_trampoline+0xd/0x10
>>   [<c04634ce>] hrtimer_run_queues+0x15e/0x2a0
>>   [<c045146d>] run_local_timers+0xd/0x20
>>   [<c04514b4>] update_process_times+0x34/0x70
>>   [<c046ce8a>] tick_periodic+0x2a/0x80
>>   [<c046cefe>] tick_handle_periodic+0x1e/0x90
>>   [<c0768377>] smp_apic_timer_interrupt+0x57/0x8b
>>   [<c076382f>] apic_timer_interrupt+0x2f/0x34
>>   [<c0401d3b>] cpu_idle+0x4b/0x80
>>   [<c074e0d7>] rest_init+0x67/0x70
>>   [<c0956874>] start_kernel+0x30e/0x314
>>   [<c095609e>] i386_start_kernel+0x9e/0xa5
>>     
>
> Which indicates we were called from hardirq context, it appears that
> that hrtimer_is_hres_active() case is indeed faulty. Not sure if I made
> a mistake when I wrote that or if we changed hrtimer behaviour
> afterwards, but the hrtimer fallback is still from hardirq context.
>
> Which would seem to suggest the following patch:
>
> ---
> Subject: hrtimer, softirq: Fix hrtimer->softirq trampoline
>
> hrtimers callbacks are always done from hardirq context, either the
> jiffy tick interrupt or the hrtimer device interrupt.
>
> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <[email-masked]>
>
>   

With this patch, the inconsistent lock state INFO is gone. Thanks.

Wei Yongjun