On 6/30/20 8:32 PM, Andrew Morton wrote: > 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, >
I see, in that case, it should be fine to go ahead with this patch-set as I already based this on top of the latest master before posting. -- Thanks Nitesh
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
