On Fri, Feb 19, 2021 at 02:14:29PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Fri, 19 Feb 2021 10:18:11 -0800 > "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > We can further prevent entry into dyntick-idle state until > > the ksoftirqd kthreads have been spawned, which means that if softirq > > handlers must be deferred, they will be resumed within one jiffy by the > > next scheduler-clock interrupt. > > Why not just prevent entry into dyntick-idle state until the system is > finished booting? As you said; There should be no latency-sensitive > applications running, until after we started the system. Exactly, and that is the effect of patch to rcu_needs_cpu() that I just now posted. Ah, your point is that if the tick keeps running, there is no need to modify softirq? Good point, and I will test that, thank you!!! Thanx, Paul
