[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <X/bmU4byS7k46zWM@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2021 11:45:39 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Ran Wang <ran.wang_1@....com>
Cc: Sebastian Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Jiafei Pan <jiafei.pan@....com>,
linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [RFC] rt: kernel/sched/core: fix kthread_park() pending
too long when CPU un-plugged
On Thu, Jan 07, 2021 at 05:18:41PM +0800, Ran Wang wrote:
> +
> + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT) &&
> + !strncmp(p->comm, "ksoftirqd/", 10))
> + schedule_hrtimeout(&to,
> + HRTIMER_MODE_REL | HRTIMER_MODE_HARD);
> + else
> + schedule_hrtimeout(&to, HRTIMER_MODE_REL);
This is horrific, why did you not self-censor and spare me the mental
anguish of having to formulate a CoC compliant response?
It also violates coding style, but given the total lack of any sense,
that seems like a minor detail.
Why can't we use HRTIMER_MODE_HARD unconditionally?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists