On 10/02/2022 15:10, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > On 2022-02-10 15:05:24 [+0100], Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 10/02/2022 14:47, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: >>> On 2022-02-10 09:33:56 [+0100], Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>>> The PREEMPT_RT patchset does not use soft IRQs thus trying to filter for >>>> do_softirq fails for such kernel: >>> >>> PREEMPT_RT does use soft IRQs. >> >> Correct. It does not use do_softirq() code, but follows different path >> with ksoftirqd. >> Shall I rephrase it towards something like this? Or maybe you have some >> more accurate description? > > It would be good to describe what the purpose of the change in terms of > the actual problem and the aimed solution. The purpose was explain - fix a failing test with PREEMPT_RT. I am not planning to rework entire test, it is merely a fix. > >> The implementation detail is that do_softirq() is in ifndef. > > So let me ask again. We have > FUNC1="schedule" > FUNC2="do_softirq" > > What is the purpose of this? Do you need FUNC2 when ksoftirqd is run or > when softirqs are served? Not sure how scheduler_tick fits in all this. I guess this is more a question to the author of the test. Unless you are now questioning the entire purpose of this test? Best regards, Krzysztof
