On Tue, 16 Nov 2021 22:02:49 +0100 Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 2021-11-16 15:25:34 [-0500], Steven Rostedt wrote: > > I'm looking to see what needs to be added to 5.10-rt. Is there a particular > > fix in one of the 5.x-rt trees (x > 10) that I can pull from? Or is this > > only an issue with 5.10 and below? > > I have this: > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20211026114100.2593433-1-bigeasy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > > pending vs upstream and I *think* more than just that one (2/9 from the > series) needs to be backported here. We do have 1/9 differently in 5.10, > not sure about 4/9. > I would love more feedback here from people and I tried to motivate Joe > to provide some. Clark was so nice to test these patches and provide > feedback. My i915 does not trigger all the code paths I'm touching > there. > > If you think that 2/9 is obvious enough, please go ahead. If you start > touching that irq_work area then you might also want to pick > 810979682ccc9 ("irq_work: Allow irq_work_sync() to sleep if irq_work() no IRQ support.") > b4c6f86ec2f64 ("irq_work: Handle some irq_work in a per-CPU thread on PREEMPT_RT") > 09089db79859c ("irq_work: Also rcuwait for !IRQ_WORK_HARD_IRQ on PREEMPT_RT") > > which made their way into v5.16-rc1. > I have a few boxes with i915, that maybe could help in testing. I'll take a look. -- Steve
