From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753161AbdJKNnF (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Oct 2017 09:43:05 -0400 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:52372 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752038AbdJKNnD (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Oct 2017 09:43:03 -0400 DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org F35A821874 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=kernel.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=acme@kernel.org Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 10:43:00 -0300 From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior Cc: Dennis Dalessandro , linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo , Clark Williams , Dean Luick , Doug Ledford , Kaike Wan , Leon Romanovsky , linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org, Peter Zijlstra , Sebastian Sanchez , Steven Rostedt , Thomas Gleixner Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] IB/hfi1: Use preempt_{dis,en}able_nort() Message-ID: <20171011134300.GS28623@kernel.org> References: <20171003154920.31566-1-acme@kernel.org> <20171003154920.31566-2-acme@kernel.org> <1d06a3da-426f-c887-1da7-64b760c53425@intel.com> <20171010190218.GN28623@kernel.org> <20171011110355.ykyr7t6x5qy5gc3u@linutronix.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20171011110355.ykyr7t6x5qy5gc3u@linutronix.de> X-Url: http://acmel.wordpress.com User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.0 (2017-09-02) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Em Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 01:03:55PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior escreveu: > On 2017-10-10 16:02:18 [-0300], Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: > > > > Right, and so far there were no strong objection for this one to be > > merged on the -rt tree, Sebastian, can you do it please? Adding Dennis' > > reviewed-by, one of maintainers for this driver, ok? > > I am still curious about the performance improvement that is with this > preempt disable section compared to without it compared to !PREEMPT > kernel.. > If that is important then migrate_disable() would do that on RT. I can try that > I guess that there were no splat with CONFIG_DEBUG_PREEMPT ? I haven't tried that > If that is all okay, please resend the patch with the explanation why > this preempt_disable() does not matter and I pick it up. I can just pick the explanation given by the authors and stash it there, I guess. > > > tree? Anyway, for this patch: > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Dennis Dalessandro > > Sebastian