From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D87DFC28CC5 for ; Sat, 8 Jun 2019 16:42:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFB9E212F5 for ; Sat, 8 Jun 2019 16:42:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727358AbfFHQmD (ORCPT ); Sat, 8 Jun 2019 12:42:03 -0400 Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.158.5]:39370 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727203AbfFHQmD (ORCPT ); Sat, 8 Jun 2019 12:42:03 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098420.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x58Gfg4W026299 for ; Sat, 8 Jun 2019 12:42:01 -0400 Received: from e13.ny.us.ibm.com (e13.ny.us.ibm.com [129.33.205.203]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2t096ubwat-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Sat, 08 Jun 2019 12:42:01 -0400 Received: from localhost by e13.ny.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Sat, 8 Jun 2019 17:42:01 +0100 Received: from b01cxnp23032.gho.pok.ibm.com (9.57.198.27) by e13.ny.us.ibm.com (146.89.104.200) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256/256) Sat, 8 Jun 2019 17:41:57 +0100 Received: from b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com (b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com [9.57.199.108]) by b01cxnp23032.gho.pok.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id x58Gfu0g37618132 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Sat, 8 Jun 2019 16:41:57 GMT Received: from b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE875B206B; Sat, 8 Jun 2019 16:41:56 +0000 (GMT) Received: from b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF628B2068; Sat, 8 Jun 2019 16:41:56 +0000 (GMT) Received: from paulmck-ThinkPad-W541 (unknown [9.85.180.36]) by b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Sat, 8 Jun 2019 16:41:56 +0000 (GMT) Received: by paulmck-ThinkPad-W541 (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 9610616C2E2C; Sat, 8 Jun 2019 09:41:58 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2019 09:41:58 -0700 From: "Paul E. McKenney" To: Dietmar Eggemann Cc: Mark Rutland , Peter Zijlstra , tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@kernel.org, jpoimboe@redhat.com, mojha@codeaurora.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH HACK RFC] cpu: Prevent late-arriving interrupts from disrupting offline Reply-To: paulmck@linux.ibm.com References: <20190602011253.GA6167@linux.ibm.com> <20190603083848.GB3436@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20190603114455.GA16119@lakrids.cambridge.arm.com> <20190604074549.GP28207@linux.ibm.com> <6eb5d59f-37d0-0aab-1fc0-fcf48cc4164f@arm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <6eb5d59f-37d0-0aab-1fc0-fcf48cc4164f@arm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 x-cbid: 19060816-0064-0000-0000-000003EB991C X-IBM-SpamModules-Scores: X-IBM-SpamModules-Versions: BY=3.00011234; HX=3.00000242; KW=3.00000007; PH=3.00000004; SC=3.00000286; SDB=6.01215077; UDB=6.00638768; IPR=6.00996168; MB=3.00027235; MTD=3.00000008; XFM=3.00000015; UTC=2019-06-08 16:42:00 X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused x-cbparentid: 19060816-0065-0000-0000-00003DCEDB3C Message-Id: <20190608164158.GK28207@linux.ibm.com> X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:,, definitions=2019-06-08_08:,, signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1810050000 definitions=main-1906080126 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jun 04, 2019 at 03:29:32PM +0200, Dietmar Eggemann wrote: > On 6/4/19 9:45 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > >On Mon, Jun 03, 2019 at 03:39:18PM +0200, Dietmar Eggemann wrote: > >>On 6/3/19 1:44 PM, Mark Rutland wrote: > >>>On Mon, Jun 03, 2019 at 10:38:48AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > >>>>On Sat, Jun 01, 2019 at 06:12:53PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > >>>>>Scheduling-clock interrupts can arrive late in the CPU-offline process, > > [...] > > >>> 05981277a4de1ad6 ("arm64: Use common outgoing-CPU-notification code") > >>> > >>>... but it looks like Paul's patch to do so [1] fell through the cracks; > >>>I'm not aware of any reason that shouldn't have been taken. > >>>[1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/1431467407-1223-8-git-send-email-paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com/ > >>> > >>>Paul, do you want to resend that? > >> > >>Please do. We're carrying this patch out-of-tree for while now in > >>our EAS integration to get cpu hotplug tests passing on TC2 (arm). > > > >Huh. It still applies. But I have no means of testing it. > > We can do the testing part on our TC2 platform, i.e. we're testing > it with each of our EAS mainline integration right now. > > https://developer.arm.com/tools-and-software/open-source-software/linux-kernel/energy-aware-scheduling/eas-mainline-development > > http://linux-arm.org/git?p=linux-power.git;a=commit;h=8cd16f1dc2cd896a0b1e2010b4992b33fdc11fe0 > > >And it looks like the reason I dropped it was that I didn't get any > >response from the maintainer. I sent a message to this effect to > >linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org and linux@arm.linux.org.uk on May > >21, 2015. > > > >So here it is again. ;-) > > > >I have queued this locally. Left to myself, I add the two of you on its > >Cc: list and run it through my normal process. But given the history, > >I would still want either an ack from the maintainer or, better, for > >the maintainer to take the patch. > > > >Or is there a better way for us to proceed on this? > > You could send this patch also to > linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org and cc rmk to get his opinion > on the patch. OK, please let me know how the testing goes. My thought is to send the patch as you suggest with your Tested-by. Thanx, Paul