Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 8 Jun 2019 09:41:58 -0700 | From | "Paul E. McKenney" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH HACK RFC] cpu: Prevent late-arriving interrupts from disrupting offline |
| |
On Tue, Jun 04, 2019 at 03:29:32PM +0200, Dietmar Eggemann wrote: > On 6/4/19 9:45 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > >On Mon, Jun 03, 2019 at 03:39:18PM +0200, Dietmar Eggemann wrote: > >>On 6/3/19 1:44 PM, Mark Rutland wrote: > >>>On Mon, Jun 03, 2019 at 10:38:48AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > >>>>On Sat, Jun 01, 2019 at 06:12:53PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > >>>>>Scheduling-clock interrupts can arrive late in the CPU-offline process, > > [...] > > >>> 05981277a4de1ad6 ("arm64: Use common outgoing-CPU-notification code") > >>> > >>>... but it looks like Paul's patch to do so [1] fell through the cracks; > >>>I'm not aware of any reason that shouldn't have been taken. > >>>[1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/1431467407-1223-8-git-send-email-paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com/ > >>> > >>>Paul, do you want to resend that? > >> > >>Please do. We're carrying this patch out-of-tree for while now in > >>our EAS integration to get cpu hotplug tests passing on TC2 (arm). > > > >Huh. It still applies. But I have no means of testing it. > > We can do the testing part on our TC2 platform, i.e. we're testing > it with each of our EAS mainline integration right now. > > https://developer.arm.com/tools-and-software/open-source-software/linux-kernel/energy-aware-scheduling/eas-mainline-development > > http://linux-arm.org/git?p=linux-power.git;a=commit;h=8cd16f1dc2cd896a0b1e2010b4992b33fdc11fe0 > > >And it looks like the reason I dropped it was that I didn't get any > >response from the maintainer. I sent a message to this effect to > >linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org and linux@arm.linux.org.uk on May > >21, 2015. > > > >So here it is again. ;-) > > > >I have queued this locally. Left to myself, I add the two of you on its > >Cc: list and run it through my normal process. But given the history, > >I would still want either an ack from the maintainer or, better, for > >the maintainer to take the patch. > > > >Or is there a better way for us to proceed on this? > > You could send this patch also to > linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org and cc rmk to get his opinion > on the patch.
OK, please let me know how the testing goes. My thought is to send the patch as you suggest with your Tested-by.
Thanx, Paul
| |