From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=100.103.45.18 ARC-Seal: i=1; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc20261015; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; t=1792614492; b=brxLYMJiMIoKOM9zcRJ32av6FHkFr4wJUl2UIv7ouTaO0rXgsd9sz4VJYmzG6VnVcvfV sfWu+EHu1UUXrofAkFD/QaNmK2HOAPAFwnLMxVVztoVmyOr+6ZDh+KyPq1T2/1K1lotCW 9ULWSfyyfNdKUk1NVMRxRdKw846TKNsJtazsXGLscAfKpU+G5jZyBzqM7mrXoSIRvSiD7 EEPhV1AgwRupc2+MrA0zXstTkhRDVKqxc0xT8Wl8sCfwxfFNGaDzmDnPrPMfqYAiL2wKo WtS6cVqR4RfeMPqVOl2NXPTilwRfo/6YuB5ZW3SLE4llD1fxHkuCzWPkxNbiQEPp4Pw== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc20261015; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1792614492; h=Received:DKIM-Signature:Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID: References:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; bh=VSHl/+6gsuyQcoPA3hVHSxV2FoDIUKsJ5OqZcbF+mxY=; b=fUlyg9WCX/zQhblD9LPf5/fmvzuCLVpZKWQrMKa5PHuraIYCiZxmC8+gBVKdqtZI+UPb 6X30HowiEDbuYkUQmOfoJmaw6S4Poi6AEqjD+XDyEr5VrbdMenI6p7N6lYKvsob3UrXq0 CIRG+t4aufhpqNYOiYP0j4iArdBLpML574AW66c7jVmkPpBmfI0c4dtA5I1VO1pUdiaMe VQxMItKkjeIlIucHJiAXdmgOPfwVDTfDfk8eFmHbaN+c+/4wphL4KkqHdmSMC7ff6Xc3O FIiMkBiNcsaaGOAEm2kWOAtVFjl4cDFS8i4HxF1NPySXzVqLco65WrMOIjza+3MWYZw== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=k20260515 header.b=kB7qldVF; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=100.103.45.18 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (quasi.space.kernel.org [100.103.45.18]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (prime256v1)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E14A8606A319 for ; Wed, 21 Oct 2026 20:28:11 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key, unprotected) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=k20260515 header.b=kB7qldVF Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 447A61F000C1; Wed, 21 Oct 2026 20:28:11 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1792614491; bh=VSHl/+6gsuyQcoPA3hVHSxV2FoDIUKsJ5OqZcbF+mxY=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To; b=kB7qldVFMeStD7ZsvOlqwKDLG0shcc6Trfdigc3VICy9Butb1yFJ186tWvXskpy4Z wIJsUfGcI+jpJaS7tKfpcFzWJPoDX21xtmMSNqiKVYE7CptbTaKBdRxaFZNDTwOLMe fTu5zcp+EdqU6+eaf//vVYBXgjfivsRle8sDYLNFCNPdDJ1T/XcghRBEjIOOWHT62D +iGu4Gw+JZ/MgJg5ADmn9b34psDOe41gMsgApxFgE2kTpZeHSodtIK+UMdDvc4o8VE txLcc4grilwIV+jNJ6ngej1pT80fqN3dk/19pNBfhxu2T21kgLYlW/Q00PHn1yJbO2 APmEUNcU4Colw== Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2026 15:28:10 -0500 From: Clark Williams To: Wen Yang Cc: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior , Steven Rostedt , linux-rt-devel@lists.linux.dev Subject: Re: [PATCH 6.6-rt 0/5] net: Backport backlog-NAPI threads to resolve PREEMPT_RT softirq warning in SMP flush Message-ID: References: <7f5046fd-f38e-4966-a616-0c8d95833eed@linux.dev> X-Mailing-List: linux-rt-devel@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: List-Owner: Precedence: list MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7f5046fd-f38e-4966-a616-0c8d95833eed@linux.dev> On Thu, Oct 22, 2026 at 12:30:22AM +0800, Wen Yang wrote: > > > On 10/20/26 02:50, Clark Williams wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 19, 2026 at 12:40:48PM -0500, Clark Williams wrote: > > > Meh, 15 patches doesn't suck. I'll try and get to that tonight or > > > tomorrow and see if we can have both v6.6-rt-next and v6.1-rt-next > > > soaking. > > > > > > Clark > > > -- > > > > Wen, > > > > I was reading back through the threads and the previous series and am > > confused as to whether your 15-patch series has all the RPS code that's > > required. I seem to recall Sebastian indicating that the original > > v6.1-rt patchset needed some extra RPS bits? > > > > Clark > > > > Hi Clark, > > Thanks for checking, and sorry for confusion. > > My understanding is that Sebastian's comment referred to the existing > RT defer_work workaround, which covers deferred freeing but not RPS. > > After rechecking against the upstream code, I haven't found an additional > RPS prerequisite needed for this series. > > Sebastian, could you please check whether this addresses your earlier > concern about RPS coverage? I'd appreciate any pointers to prerequisites > I may have missed. > > Thanks, > Wen No worries, my natural state is confusion :) I've applied your 15 patch series and built/smoke-tested it. I'll wait for Sebastian to comment and then I'll push what I have up to v6.1-rt-next. Clark -- The United States Coast Guard Ruining Natural Selection since 1790