From 96c1fa04f089a7e977a44e4e8fdc92e81be20bef Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Paul Gortmaker Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2023 16:07:57 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] tick/rcu: Fix false positive "softirq work is pending" messages In commit 0345691b24c0 ("tick/rcu: Stop allowing RCU_SOFTIRQ in idle") the new function report_idle_softirq() was created by breaking code out of the existing can_stop_idle_tick() for kernels v5.18 and newer. In doing so, the code essentially went from a one conditional: if (a && b && c) warn(); to a three conditional: if (!a) return; if (!b) return; if (!c) return; warn(); But that conversion got the condition for the RT specific local_bh_blocked() wrong. The original condition was: !local_bh_blocked() but the conversion failed to negate it so it ended up as: if (!local_bh_blocked()) return false; This issue lay dormant until another fixup for the same commit was added in commit a7e282c77785 ("tick/rcu: Fix bogus ratelimit condition"). This commit realized the ratelimit was essentially set to zero instead of ten, and hence *no* softirq pending messages would ever be issued. Once this commit was backported via linux-stable, both the v6.1 and v6.4 preempt-rt kernels started printing out 10 instances of this at boot: NOHZ tick-stop error: local softirq work is pending, handler #80!!! Remove the negation and return when local_bh_blocked() evaluates to true to bring the correct behaviour back. Fixes: 0345691b24c0 ("tick/rcu: Stop allowing RCU_SOFTIRQ in idle") Signed-off-by: Paul Gortmaker Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner Tested-by: Ahmad Fatoum Reviewed-by: Wen Yang Acked-by: Frederic Weisbecker Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230818200757.1808398-1-paul.gortmaker@windriver.com --- kernel/time/tick-sched.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/kernel/time/tick-sched.c b/kernel/time/tick-sched.c index 4df14db4da49..87015e9deacc 100644 --- a/kernel/time/tick-sched.c +++ b/kernel/time/tick-sched.c @@ -1045,7 +1045,7 @@ static bool report_idle_softirq(void) return false; /* On RT, softirqs handling may be waiting on some lock */ - if (!local_bh_blocked()) + if (local_bh_blocked()) return false; pr_warn("NOHZ tick-stop error: local softirq work is pending, handler #%02x!!!\n",