From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Chris Metcalf Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 00/13] support "task_isolation" mode for nohz_full Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2016 16:19:56 -0500 Message-ID: <5696BF7C.2080800@ezchip.com> References: <1451936091-29247-1-git-send-email-cmetcalf@ezchip.com> <56941B86.9090009@ezchip.com> <20160112100708.GA15737@arm.com> <56953CBA.9090208@ezchip.com> <20160113104453.GB9854@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20160113104453.GB9854@gmail.com> Sender: linux-doc-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Ingo Molnar , Mark Rutland Cc: Will Deacon , Gilad Ben Yossef , Steven Rostedt , Peter Zijlstra , Andrew Morton , Rik van Riel , Tejun Heo , Frederic Weisbecker , Thomas Gleixner , "Paul E. McKenney" , Christoph Lameter , Viresh Kumar , Catalin Marinas , Andy Lutomirski , Daniel Lezcano , linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-api@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-api@vger.kernel.org On 01/13/2016 05:44 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Chris Metcalf wrote: > >> (Adding Mark to cc's) >> >> On 01/12/2016 05:07 AM, Will Deacon wrote: >>> On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 04:15:50PM -0500, Chris Metcalf wrote: >>>> Ping! There has been no substantive feedback to this version of >>>> the patch in the week since I posted it, which optimistically suggests >>>> to me that people may be satisfied with it. If that's true, Frederic, >>>> I assume this would be pulled into your tree? >>>> >>>> I have slightly updated the v9 patch series since this posting: >>>> >>>> [...] >>>> >>>> - Incorporated Mark Rutland's changes to convert arm64 >>>> assembly to C code instead of using my own version. >>> Please avoid queuing these patches -- the first is already in the arm64 >>> queue for 4.5 and the second was found to introduce a substantial >>> performance regression on the syscall entry/exit path. I think Mark had >>> an updated version to address that, so it would be easier not to have >>> an old version sitting in some other queue! >> I am not formally queueing them anywhere (like linux-next), though >> now that you mention it, that's a pretty good idea - I'll talk to Steven >> about that, assuming this merge window closes without the task >> isolation stuff going in. > NAK. Given the controversy, no way should this stuff go outside the primary trees > it affects: the scheduler, timer, irq, etc. trees. Fair enough. I'll plan to do v10 once the merge window closes. Mark, let me know when/if you get a new version of the de-asm stuff for do_notify_resume() - thanks. Or, would it be helpful if I worked up the option I suggested, where we check the thread_info flags in the assembly code before calling out to the new loop in do_notify_resume()? -- Chris Metcalf, EZChip Semiconductor http://www.ezchip.com