On Mon, 29 Jun 2020 12:11:25 -0400 Nitesh Narayan Lal <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On 6/25/20 6:34 PM, Nitesh Narayan Lal wrote: > > From: Alex Belits <[email protected]> > > > > The current implementation of cpumask_local_spread() does not respect the > > isolated CPUs, i.e., even if a CPU has been isolated for Real-Time task, > > it will return it to the caller for pinning of its IRQ threads. Having > > these unwanted IRQ threads on an isolated CPU adds up to a latency > > overhead. > > > > Restrict the CPUs that are returned for spreading IRQs only to the > > available housekeeping CPUs. > > > > Signed-off-by: Alex Belits <[email protected]> > > Signed-off-by: Nitesh Narayan Lal <[email protected]> > > Hi Peter, > > I just realized that Yuqi jin's patch [1] that modifies cpumask_local_spread > is > lying in linux-next. > Should I do a re-post by re-basing the patches on the top of linux-next? > > [1] > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/[email protected]/ This patch has had some review difficulties and has been pending for quite some time. I suggest you base your work on mainline and that we ask Yuqi jin to rebase on that, if I don't feel confident doing it,
