On 6/30/20 8:32 PM, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Mon, 29 Jun 2020 12:11:25 -0400 Nitesh Narayan Lal <nitesh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On 6/25/20 6:34 PM, Nitesh Narayan Lal wrote: >>> From: Alex Belits <abelits@xxxxxxxxxxx> >>> >>> The current implementation of cpumask_local_spread() does not respect the >>> isolated CPUs, i.e., even if a CPU has been isolated for Real-Time task, >>> it will return it to the caller for pinning of its IRQ threads. Having >>> these unwanted IRQ threads on an isolated CPU adds up to a latency >>> overhead. >>> >>> Restrict the CPUs that are returned for spreading IRQs only to the >>> available housekeeping CPUs. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Alex Belits <abelits@xxxxxxxxxxx> >>> Signed-off-by: Nitesh Narayan Lal <nitesh@xxxxxxxxxx> >> Hi Peter, >> >> I just realized that Yuqi jin's patch [1] that modifies cpumask_local_spread is >> lying in linux-next. >> Should I do a re-post by re-basing the patches on the top of linux-next? >> >> [1] >> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/1582768688-2314-1-git-send-email-zhangshaokun@xxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > This patch has had some review difficulties and has been pending for > quite some time. I suggest you base your work on mainline and that we > ask Yuqi jin to rebase on that, if I don't feel confident doing it, > I see, in that case, it should be fine to go ahead with this patch-set as I already based this on top of the latest master before posting. -- Thanks Nitesh
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
