Re: [Patch v4 1/3] lib: Restrict cpumask_local_spread to houskeeping CPUs

[Nitesh Narayan Lal]

On 6/30/20 8:32 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Jun 2020 12:11:25 -0400 Nitesh Narayan Lal <nitesh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> On 6/25/20 6:34 PM, Nitesh Narayan Lal wrote:
>>> From: Alex Belits <abelits@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>
>>> 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 <abelits@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Signed-off-by: Nitesh Narayan Lal <nitesh@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> 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/1582768688-2314-1-git-send-email-zhangshaokun@xxxxxxxxxxxxx/
> 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

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature