On 2021-09-22 01:45:18 [+0200], Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
Also while at it, I'm asking again: traditionally softirqs could assume that
manipulating a local state was safe against !irq_count() code fiddling with
the same state on the same CPU.
Now with preemptible softirqs, that assumption can be broken anytime. RCU was
fortunate enough to have a warning for that. But who knows how many issues like
this are lurking?
If "local state" is modified then it is safe as long as it is modified
within a local_bh_disable() section. And we are in this section while
invoking a forced-threaded interrupt. The special part about RCU is
that it is used in_irq() as part of core-code.
Thanks.
Sebastian
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel