Re: Quick review of -rt RCU-related patches

["Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>]

On Wed, Oct 05, 2011 at 12:12:35AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-10-05 at 00:05 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > peter_zijlstra-frob-rcu.patch
> > > 
> > >       Looks OK.  Hmmm...  Should this one go to mainline?
> > >       Oh, looks equivalent, actually.  So why the change?
> > 
> > Peter ? 
> 
> -       if (in_irq() || in_serving_softirq()) {
> +       if (preempt_count() & (HARDIRQ_MASK | SOFTIRQ_OFFSET)) {
> 
> 
> For !rt its equivalent yes, for rt otoh its not:
> 
> int in_serving_softirq(void)
> {
>         int res;
> 
>         preempt_disable();
>         res = __get_cpu_var(local_softirq_runner) == current;
>         preempt_enable();
>         return res;
> }
> 
> However invoke_softirq() will still add SOFTIRQ_OFFSET so we need to
> look at that to avoid recursion issues.
> 
> The changelog describes this. So this change is a direct consequence of
> -rt frobbing the softirq stuff and thus isn't needed upstream. 

Ah, thank you for the explanation!

							Thanx, Paul