Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH HACK RFC] cpu: Prevent late-arriving interrupts from disrupting offline | From | Dietmar Eggemann <> | Date | Tue, 11 Jun 2019 15:14:54 +0200 |
| |
On 6/8/19 6:41 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > 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,
[...]
>>> 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.
Tested your patch on top of v5.2-rc4* on Arm TC2 (32bit) and CPU hotplug stress test. W/o your patch, the test fails within seconds since CPUs are not coming up again. W/ your patch, the test runs for hours just fine.
You can add my:
Tested-by: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>
* just for the record: one additional unrelated patch (to disable the NOR flash) is necessary on Arm TC2: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10968391 .
| |