[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87cyvi8fzz.fsf@somnus>
Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2023 11:27:12 +0100
From: Anna-Maria Behnsen <anna-maria@...utronix.de>
To: Sebastian Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
John Stultz <jstultz@...gle.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
"Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Giovanni Gherdovich <ggherdovich@...e.cz>,
Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@....com>,
"Gautham R . Shenoy" <gautham.shenoy@....com>,
Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...el.com>,
K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 25/32] timers: Add get next timer interrupt
functionality for remote CPUs
Sebastian Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de> writes:
> On 2023-12-01 10:26:47 [+0100], Anna-Maria Behnsen wrote:
>> To prepare for the conversion of the NOHZ timer placement to a pull at
>> expiry time model it's required to have functionality available getting the
>> next timer interrupt on a remote CPU.
>>
>> Locking of the timer bases and getting the information for the next timer
>> interrupt functionality is split into separate functions. This is required
>> to be compliant with lock ordering when the new model is in place.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Anna-Maria Behnsen <anna-maria@...utronix.de>
>> Reviewed-by: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
>
> Please fold the hunk below, it keeps sparse happy.
Thanks, I will do!
Anna-Maria
Powered by blists - more mailing lists