[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CANDhNCpm6Rn2qB53pHwo9ram-G=-r9Ku2tbi+Us7wwh9J3svEg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2022 19:15:02 -0700
From: John Stultz <jstultz@...gle.com>
To: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Connor O'Brien" <connoro@...gle.com>,
John Dias <joaodias@...gle.com>, Rick Yiu <rickyiu@...gle.com>,
John Kacur <jkacur@...hat.com>,
Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@....com>,
Chris Redpath <chris.redpath@....com>,
Abhijeet Dharmapurikar <adharmap@...cinc.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.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>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, kernel-team@...roid.com,
"J . Avila" <elavila@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/2] sched: Avoid placing RT threads on cores
handling long softirqs
On Wed, Aug 10, 2022 at 7:11 PM Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 8/10/22 18:57, John Stultz wrote:
> > diff --git a/init/Kconfig b/init/Kconfig
> > index c7900e8975f1..b0dde2771314 100644
> > --- a/init/Kconfig
> > +++ b/init/Kconfig
> > @@ -1278,6 +1278,17 @@ config SCHED_AUTOGROUP
> > desktop applications. Task group autogeneration is currently based
> > upon task session.
> >
> > +config RT_SOFTIRQ_OPTIMIZATION
> > + bool "Improve RT scheduling during long softirq execution"
> > + depends on ARM64
> > + depends on SMP
> > + default n
> > + help
> > + Enable an optimization which tries to avoid placing RT tasks on CPUs
>
> Above line is indented with spaces only. :(
>
> > + occupied by nonpreemptible tasks, such as a long softirq or CPUs
> > + which may soon block preemptions, such as a CPU running a ksoftirq
> > + thread which handles slow softirqs.
>
> All help text lines should be indented with one tab + 2 spaces,
> per Documentation/process/coding-style.rst.
> (The 3 lines above have one tab + one space.)
My apologies! I didn't notice (and checkpatch --strict didn't seem to complain).
I'll fix it up for the next revision.
Thanks for the quick feedback!
-john
Powered by blists - more mailing lists