[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20200630173244.eef158fb09dca3cc1e2e63b1@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2020 17:32:44 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Nitesh Narayan Lal <nitesh@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
peterz@...radead.org, frederic@...nel.org, mtosatti@...hat.com,
juri.lelli@...hat.com, abelits@...vell.com, bhelgaas@...gle.com,
linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, rostedt@...dmis.org, mingo@...nel.org,
tglx@...utronix.de, davem@...emloft.net, sfr@...b.auug.org.au,
stephen@...workplumber.org, rppt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
jinyuqi@...wei.com, zhangshaokun@...ilicon.com
Subject: Re: [Patch v4 1/3] lib: Restrict cpumask_local_spread to
houskeeping CPUs
On Mon, 29 Jun 2020 12:11:25 -0400 Nitesh Narayan Lal <nitesh@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> On 6/25/20 6:34 PM, Nitesh Narayan Lal wrote:
> > From: Alex Belits <abelits@...vell.com>
> >
> > The current implementation of cpumask_local_spread() does not respect the
> > isolated CPUs, i.e., even if a CPU has been isolated for Real-Time task,
> > it will return it to the caller for pinning of its IRQ threads. Having
> > these unwanted IRQ threads on an isolated CPU adds up to a latency
> > overhead.
> >
> > Restrict the CPUs that are returned for spreading IRQs only to the
> > available housekeeping CPUs.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Alex Belits <abelits@...vell.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Nitesh Narayan Lal <nitesh@...hat.com>
>
> Hi Peter,
>
> I just realized that Yuqi jin's patch [1] that modifies cpumask_local_spread is
> lying in linux-next.
> Should I do a re-post by re-basing the patches on the top of linux-next?
>
> [1]
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/1582768688-2314-1-git-send-email-zhangshaokun@hisilicon.com/
This patch has had some review difficulties and has been pending for
quite some time. I suggest you base your work on mainline and that we
ask Yuqi jin to rebase on that, if I don't feel confident doing it,
Powered by blists - more mailing lists