[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y1TxCTq5gxh4fIEd@li-4a3a4a4c-28e5-11b2-a85c-a8d192c6f089.ibm.com>
Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2022 09:45:13 +0200
From: Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@...ux.ibm.com>
To: Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>
Cc: John Stultz <jstultz@...gle.com>,
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 Sat, Oct 22, 2022 at 06:34:37PM +0000, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > 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.
>
> How will that help? The long softirq executing inside ksoftirqd will disable
> preemption and prevent any RT task from executing.
Right. So the check to deem a remote CPU unfit would (logically) look like this:
(active | pending | ksoftirqd) & LONG_SOFTIRQ_MASK
> Did I miss something?
Or me :)
> thanks,
>
> - Joel
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists