[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y1FDegctcU2LrYGT@li-4a3a4a4c-28e5-11b2-a85c-a8d192c6f089.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2022 14:47:54 +0200
From: Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@...ux.ibm.com>
To: John Stultz <jstultz@...gle.com>
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: [PATCH RFC v4 2/3] sched: Avoid placing RT threads on cores
handling long softirqs
On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 03:09:15PM -0700, John Stultz wrote:
Hi John,
[...]
> So I'll go ahead and simplify the check to just the LONG_SOFTIRQ_MASK
> & (active | pending softirqs) check. This should avoid the need to
> pull the cpu_rq(cpu)->curr value and simplify things.
In my reading of your approach if you find a way to additionally
indicate long softirqs being handled by the remote ksoftirqd, it
would cover all obvious/not-corner cases.
> -john
Powered by blists - more mailing lists