From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>
Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, ardb@kernel.org,
catalin.marinas@arm.com, juri.lelli@redhat.com,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@redhat.com, will@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] sched/preempt: add PREEMPT_DYNAMIC using static keys
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2022 23:40:48 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20220203224048.GF20638@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20211213220501.GB786870@lothringen>
On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 11:05:01PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> Anyone has an opinion on that? Can we do better on the arm64 static call side
> or should we resign ourself to using that static keys direction?
I don't hate this thing.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-02-03 22:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-11-09 17:24 [PATCH 0/6] arm64 / sched/preempt: support PREEMPT_DYNAMIC with static keys Mark Rutland
2021-11-09 17:24 ` [PATCH 1/6] sched/preempt: move PREEMPT_DYNAMIC logic later Mark Rutland
2021-11-09 17:24 ` [PATCH 2/6] sched/preempt: refactor sched_dynamic_update() Mark Rutland
2021-12-10 15:13 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2022-02-02 15:13 ` Mark Rutland
2022-02-02 16:01 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2022-02-02 18:08 ` Mark Rutland
2022-02-03 11:52 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2021-11-09 17:24 ` [PATCH 3/6] sched/preempt: simplify irqentry_exit_cond_resched() callers Mark Rutland
2021-11-09 17:24 ` [PATCH 4/6] sched/preempt: decouple HAVE_PREEMPT_DYNAMIC from GENERIC_ENTRY Mark Rutland
2021-11-09 17:24 ` [PATCH 5/6] sched/preempt: add PREEMPT_DYNAMIC using static keys Mark Rutland
2021-12-13 22:05 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2022-02-02 15:29 ` Mark Rutland
2022-02-03 22:40 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2022-02-02 23:21 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2022-02-03 9:51 ` Mark Rutland
2022-02-03 11:34 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2022-02-03 12:27 ` Mark Rutland
2021-11-09 17:24 ` [PATCH 6/6] arm64: support PREEMPT_DYNAMIC Mark Rutland
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20220203224048.GF20638@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=ardb@kernel.org \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=frederic@kernel.org \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox