[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20210803225437.3612591-1-valentin.schneider@arm.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2021 23:54:35 +0100
From: Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, rcu@...r.kernel.org,
linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>,
Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>
Subject: [PATCH 0/2] rcutorture: Some PREEMPT_RT fixlets
Hi folks,
I've been meaning to run RCU torture under v5.13-rt1 to validate my hacking
around the RCU offloaded state [1], but have hit some warnings.
The second patch clearly isn't a thing of beauty, but FWIW it lets me run RCU
torture tests without any extra steps.
As mentioned over IRC, this started as a .setup() callback for the kosftirqd
threads gated behind CONFIG_RCU_BOOST && CONFIG_RCU_TORTURE_TEST, but I figured
keeping RCU torture specific stuff within rcutorture.c would be a tad smarter.
I hate either version, but here it is regardless.
[1]: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20210728220137.GD293265@lothringen/
Cheers,
Valentin
Valentin Schneider (2):
rcutorture: Don't disable softirqs with preemption disabled when
PREEMPT_RT
rcutorture: Nudge ksoftirqd priority for RCU boost testing
kernel/rcu/rcutorture.c | 16 ++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 16 insertions(+)
--
2.25.1
Powered by blists - more mailing lists