On irq work initialization, let the user choose to define it
as "lazy" or not. "Lazy" means that we don't want to send
an IPI (provided the arch can anyway) when we enqueue this
work but we rather prefer to wait for the next timer tick
to execute our work if possible.
This is going to be a benefit for non-urgent enqueuers
(like printk in the future) that may prefer not to raise
an IPI storm in case of frequent enqueuing on short periods
of time.
Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@windriver.com>
Provide a mechanism that allows running code in IRQ context. It is
most useful for NMI code that needs to interact with the rest of the
system -- like wakeup a task to drain buffers.
Perf currently has such a mechanism, so extract that and provide it as
a generic feature, independent of perf so that others may also
benefit.
The IRQ context callback is generated through self-IPIs where
possible, or on architectures like powerpc the decrementer (the
built-in timer facility) is set to generate an interrupt immediately.
Architectures that don't have anything like this get to do with a
callback from the timer tick. These architectures can call
irq_work_run() at the tail of any IRQ handlers that might enqueue such
work (like the perf IRQ handler) to avoid undue latencies in
processing the work.
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Acked-by: Kyle McMartin <kyle@mcmartin.ca>
Acked-by: Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com>
[ various fixes ]
Signed-off-by: Huang Ying <ying.huang@intel.com>
LKML-Reference: <1287036094.7768.291.camel@yhuang-dev>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Frederic Weisbecker
Huang Ying
Peter Zijlstra