[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <SJ1PR11MB6083AA5292C11145BEEBAF6FFCFC9@SJ1PR11MB6083.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2023 19:05:48 +0000
From: "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>
To: "Raj, Ashok" <ashok.raj@...el.com>
CC: "Moger, Babu" <Babu.Moger@....com>,
Ashok Raj <ashok_raj@...ux.intel.com>,
"corbet@....net" <corbet@....net>,
"Chatre, Reinette" <reinette.chatre@...el.com>,
"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
"bp@...en8.de" <bp@...en8.de>,
"Yu, Fenghua" <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
"dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com" <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>, "hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>,
"paulmck@...nel.org" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
"akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"quic_neeraju@...cinc.com" <quic_neeraju@...cinc.com>,
"rdunlap@...radead.org" <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
"damien.lemoal@...nsource.wdc.com" <damien.lemoal@...nsource.wdc.com>,
"songmuchun@...edance.com" <songmuchun@...edance.com>,
"peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
"jpoimboe@...nel.org" <jpoimboe@...nel.org>,
"pbonzini@...hat.com" <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
"Bae, Chang Seok" <chang.seok.bae@...el.com>,
"pawan.kumar.gupta@...ux.intel.com"
<pawan.kumar.gupta@...ux.intel.com>,
"jmattson@...gle.com" <jmattson@...gle.com>,
"daniel.sneddon@...ux.intel.com" <daniel.sneddon@...ux.intel.com>,
"Das1, Sandipan" <Sandipan.Das@....com>,
"james.morse@....com" <james.morse@....com>,
"linux-doc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"bagasdotme@...il.com" <bagasdotme@...il.com>,
"Eranian, Stephane" <eranian@...gle.com>,
"christophe.leroy@...roup.eu" <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>,
"jarkko@...nel.org" <jarkko@...nel.org>,
"Hunter, Adrian" <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
"quic_jiles@...cinc.com" <quic_jiles@...cinc.com>,
"peternewman@...gle.com" <peternewman@...gle.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v11 01/13] x86/resctrl: Replace smp_call_function_many()
with on_each_cpu_mask()
> I wasn't sure if the few ms difference is going to make much material
> difference for that process. IPI's does shake things up and introduces
> other overheads not related to this process.
Is it just a few milli-seconds? What is the scheduler priority of the kernel
thread you wake to perform this action? How does that compare to the
priority of a RT thread? I may be wrong here, but I think an RT thread can
block a kernel thread from running indefinitely.
-Tony
Powered by blists - more mailing lists