[PATCH v5 7/9] task_isolation: don't interrupt CPUs with tick_nohz_full_kick_cpu()

[Mark Rutland]

On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 05:58:22PM +0000, Alex Belits wrote:
> From: Yuri Norov <ynorov at marvell.com>
> 
> For nohz_full CPUs the desirable behavior is to receive interrupts
> generated by tick_nohz_full_kick_cpu(). But for hard isolation it's
> obviously not desirable because it breaks isolation.
> 
> This patch adds check for it.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Yuri Norov <ynorov at marvell.com>
> [abelits at marvell.com: updated, only exclude CPUs running isolated tasks]
> Signed-off-by: Alex Belits <abelits at marvell.com>
> ---
>  kernel/time/tick-sched.c | 4 +++-
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/time/tick-sched.c b/kernel/time/tick-sched.c
> index a213952541db..6c8679e200f0 100644
> --- a/kernel/time/tick-sched.c
> +++ b/kernel/time/tick-sched.c
> @@ -20,6 +20,7 @@
>  #include <linux/sched/clock.h>
>  #include <linux/sched/stat.h>
>  #include <linux/sched/nohz.h>
> +#include <linux/isolation.h>
>  #include <linux/module.h>
>  #include <linux/irq_work.h>
>  #include <linux/posix-timers.h>
> @@ -268,7 +269,8 @@ static void tick_nohz_full_kick(void)
>   */
>  void tick_nohz_full_kick_cpu(int cpu)
>  {
> -	if (!tick_nohz_full_cpu(cpu))
> +	smp_rmb();

What does this barrier pair with? The commit message doesn't mention it,
and it's not clear in-context.

Thanks,
Mark.

> +	if (!tick_nohz_full_cpu(cpu) || task_isolation_on_cpu(cpu))
>  		return;
>  
>  	irq_work_queue_on(&per_cpu(nohz_full_kick_work, cpu), cpu);
> -- 
> 2.20.1
>