[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210219141429.53def012@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2021 14:14:29 -0500
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
Cc: Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, RCU <rcu@...r.kernel.org>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Daniel Axtens <dja@...ens.net>,
Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>,
Neeraj Upadhyay <neeraju@...eaurora.org>,
Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
"Theodore Y . Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
Oleksiy Avramchenko <oleksiy.avramchenko@...ymobile.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kprobes: Fix to delay the kprobes jump optimization
On Fri, 19 Feb 2021 10:18:11 -0800
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org> wrote:
> We can further prevent entry into dyntick-idle state until
> the ksoftirqd kthreads have been spawned, which means that if softirq
> handlers must be deferred, they will be resumed within one jiffy by the
> next scheduler-clock interrupt.
Why not just prevent entry into dyntick-idle state until the system is
finished booting? As you said; There should be no latency-sensitive
applications running, until after we started the system.
-- Steve
Powered by blists - more mailing lists