Re: kernel: return from interrupt

> > I was under the impression that the 5.3 release had an option for full
> > preemption.  If I am correct, why does the kernel refuse to schedule on
> > a return_from_interrupt if its not going back to userland? I can
> > understand this being a problem if interrupts were nested, or return
> > from a page fault in a critical section. Please correct me if I am
> > wrong, but if a *high* priority interrupt thread is ready to run, it
> > should be given a chance. Presuming the *interrupted* kernel path is
> > going to give up the CPU fast enough is probably not a good idea.
> >
> > I hope I have sent this to the right mailing list.
> 
> Even normal "options PREEMPTION" should do this.  I know from tracing the
> kernel in 6.x that that's the way the system behaves out of the box; with
> PREEMPTION turned on in 5.x you should see the same behavior.  One thing I
> often do see, FWIW, is that if you're on an SMP box, the ithread will get
> scheduled to run immediately on another CPU that's idle, so you won't
> actually preempt the thread on the current CPU other than for the
> interrupt handler.  What behavior are you seeing that suggests this isn't
> happening with PREEMPTION compiled in?

I may be missing something fundamental here, but, doreti
(exceptions.s) does not call 'ast' for an interrupted task, that does
not have RPL of  3 (user).  So, even if an interrupt is pending, and
the 'NEEDRESCHED' is set, the scheduling decision is delayed till the
kernel thread or whatever was running in the kernel sleeps, or give up
the cpu(call mi_switch), or returns to user mode.

AFAIK this is the only return path from an interrupt. Unless there is
another return path for the interrupts, the scheduler is not invoked
on a return.

Thanks,
-Anurekh


> Robert N M Watson             FreeBSD Core Team, TrustedBSD Projects
> robert_at_fledge.watson.org      Principal Research Scientist, McAfee Research
> 
>