From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from galois.linutronix.de (Galois.linutronix.de [193.142.43.55]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B343344CAC6 for ; Wed, 3 Jun 2026 11:02:50 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=193.142.43.55 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1780484571; cv=none; b=DbXqKjzQIghx7oeh+zwYPRA0eYBd1LuUamQTNIj3gyRol+uK2wmOplDMM3U6gp/aV3xWlOEvSC63uDpi/xDL9VXqQEjxZ1qofaiHLv3CZN4wLwJzjnIgMt/eC28xaCMuK3nrYHJd6jL5jHGFLNQG7pfSW+cdZLG3AbAQ46cJfeg= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1780484571; c=relaxed/simple; bh=xjaQDcpvN04s3z1xlyZarnv+pctbySsRFiMmnin0x4A=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=KYX2ChCkCU5wvLKhtk7/yOdB9rdxdi1QXX9Eu5eMXb1KLsk6hcC0pfVExCnj1n0EQHzg5Hq7+1pHcMCfMSZXMNCh5NPm9zeqotktFSWic5sjWBwfeKNzJNTMW3PYU2WGT3Bl41iMT+3qZy1U5kIvgGjE2QRv7ZazfRB9JiqbIC8= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linutronix.de; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linutronix.de; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b=WU+tElOj; dkim=permerror (0-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b=b474UMig; arc=none smtp.client-ip=193.142.43.55 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linutronix.de Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linutronix.de Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b="WU+tElOj"; dkim=permerror (0-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b="b474UMig" Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2026 13:02:47 +0200 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linutronix.de; s=2020; t=1780484569; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=xjaQDcpvN04s3z1xlyZarnv+pctbySsRFiMmnin0x4A=; b=WU+tElOjvuWnyDr51QBdQXT0W71+gc66s4PlkoHQWv2ucoUaQ3A76xIFyFGmgJddIWmgA6 jgHm68AfmqLcbf2x0OMjH4YU7aHP7N987NY1EyNyZ2MT5O9LXvsM63nqIZZYgqZiXT1nlu j5IIZR0tRBfgW8SPPIjoCram1mRbM0e3qnTJeu9+qIq6yX7AZ84nQe3rvTXdHE12ViA0nB WUE2mpAhEbVh0KxjRnDH3yCRCFcRpVVHetOgTz238/kGhP4jeFmGptfA3la6A86U6uirQ8 pSWRd5vdavk47V48EyewU5aN6HkR9sp2X740D7bTcUgIDcVxifJTqLo0t6mGHg== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linutronix.de; s=2020e; t=1780484569; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=xjaQDcpvN04s3z1xlyZarnv+pctbySsRFiMmnin0x4A=; b=b474UMigasfDv8EncEYkGqN0C+5QIMPMmMZJVMoRBFC3o/zTa3/i7qlXyxtTcJY5c7hHte cv8gTeTab49dyODA== From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior To: tglx@kernel.org, mingo@redhat.com, luto@kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org, paulmck@kernel.org, muchun.song@linux.dev, bp@alien8.de, dave.hansen@linux.intel.com, pbonzini@redhat.com, clrkwllms@kernel.org, rostedt@goodmis.org, nadav.amit@gmail.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Cc: Chuyi Zhou Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 00/12] Allow preemption during IPI completion waiting to improve real-time performance Message-ID: <20260603110247.ybEV8arv@linutronix.de> References: <20260528151338.617843-1-zhouchuyi@bytedance.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In-Reply-To: <20260528151338.617843-1-zhouchuyi@bytedance.com> On 2026-05-28 23:13:26 [+0800], Chuyi Zhou wrote: > Changes in v6: =E2=80=A6 I didn't find anything major bad with this. Any statement from x86 or sched folks? Sebastian