On Thu, 2020-07-23 at 17:48 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 03:41:46PM +0000, Alex Belits wrote: > > On Thu, 2020-07-23 at 16:29 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > . > > > > > > This.. as presented it is an absolutely unreviewable pile of > > > junk. It > > > presents code witout any coherent problem description and > > > analysis. > > > And > > > the patches are not split sanely either. > > > > There is a more complete and slightly outdated description in the > > previous version of the patch at > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lore.kernel.org_lkml_07c25c246c55012981ec0296eee23e68c719333a.camel-40marvell.com_&d=DwIBAg&c=nKjWec2b6R0mOyPaz7xtfQ&r=1qgvOnXfk3ZHJA3p7RIb6NFqs4SPPDyPI_PcwNFp8KY&m=shk9a5FDwktOZysSbFIjxmgUg-IPyw2UkbVAHGBhNV0&s=FFZaj-KanwqEiXYCdjd96JOgP_GAOnanpkw6bBvNrK4&e= > > Not the point, you're mixing far too many things in one go. You also > have the patches split like 'generic / arch-1 / arch-2' which is > wrong > per definition, as patches should be split per change and not care > about > sily boundaries. This follows the original patch by Chris Metcalf. There is a reason for that -- per-architecture changes are independent from each other and affect not just code but functionality that was implemented per- architecture. To support more architectures, it will be necessary to do it separately for each, and mark them supported with HAVE_ARCH_TASK_ISOLATION. Having only some architectures supported does not break anything for the rest -- architectures that are not covered, would not have this functionality. > > Also, if you want generic entry code, there's patches for that here: > > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lkml.kernel.org_r_20200722215954.464281930-40linutronix.de&d=DwIBAg&c=nKjWec2b6R0mOyPaz7xtfQ&r=1qgvOnXfk3ZHJA3p7RIb6NFqs4SPPDyPI_PcwNFp8KY&m=shk9a5FDwktOZysSbFIjxmgUg-IPyw2UkbVAHGBhNV0&s=nZXIviY7rva31KvPgSVnTacwFNbsmkdW0LxSTfYSiqg&e= > > > That looks useful. Why didn't Thomas Gleixner mention it in his criticism of my approach if he already solved that exact problem, at least for x86? -- Alex
