[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87v9b66tho.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date: Fri, 05 Feb 2021 23:26:59 +0100
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Nitesh Narayan Lal <nitesh@...hat.com>,
Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>
Cc: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-api@...r.kernel.org, frederic@...nel.org,
juri.lelli@...hat.com, abelits@...vell.com, bhelgaas@...gle.com,
linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, rostedt@...dmis.org, mingo@...nel.org,
peterz@...radead.org, davem@...emloft.net,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, 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 Fri, Feb 05 2021 at 23:23, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 04 2021 at 14:17, Nitesh Narayan Lal wrote:
>> On 2/4/21 2:06 PM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
>>>>> How about adding a new flag for isolcpus instead?
>>>>>
>>>> Do you mean a flag based on which we can switch the affinity mask to
>>>> housekeeping for all the devices at the time of IRQ distribution?
>>> Yes a new flag for isolcpus. HK_FLAG_IRQ_SPREAD or some better name.
>>
>> Does sounds like a nice idea to explore, lets see what Thomas thinks about it.
<.SNIP.>
> So I'm going to revert this commit because it _IS_ broken _AND_ useless
> and does not solve anything it claims to solve.
And no. HK_FLAG_IRQ_SPREAD is not going to solve anything either.
Thanks,
tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists