On Tue, Apr 25, 2023 at 09:51:12PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 17 2023 at 16:50, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > As a tangent/aside, we might need to improve that for confidential compute
> > architectures, and we might want to generically track cpus which might
> &g
.@lists.infradead.org
I gave this a spin on arm64 (in a 64-vCPU VM on an M1 host), and it seems to
work fine with a bunch of vCPUs being hotplugged off and on again randomly.
FWIW:
Tested-by: Mark Rutland
I also hacked the code to have the dying CPU spin forever before the call to
On Tue, Jun 14, 2022 at 06:58:30PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2022 at 12:19:29PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 08, 2022 at 04:27:23PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > Hi All! (omg so many)
> >
> > Hi Peter,
> >
> > S
On Tue, Jun 14, 2022 at 06:42:14PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2022 at 05:13:16PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 08, 2022 at 04:27:38PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > All callers should still have RCU enabled.
> >
> > IIUC wi
On Tue, Jun 14, 2022 at 06:40:53PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2022 at 01:41:13PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 08, 2022 at 04:27:37PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > --- a/kernel/time/tick-broadcast.c
> > > +++ b/kernel/time/tick-
ove these calls.
>
> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel)
> Acked-by: Paul E. McKenney
Acked-by: Mark Rutland
Mark.
> ---
> kernel/rcu/tree.c |9 +++--
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
er Zijlstra (Intel)
Nice!
Acked-by: Mark Rutland [arm64]
Mark.
> ---
> arch/alpha/kernel/process.c |1 -
> arch/arc/kernel/process.c|3 +++
> arch/arm/kernel/process.c|1 -
> arch/arm/mach-gemini/board-dt.c |3 ++-
> arch/arm64/kernel
On Wed, Jun 08, 2022 at 04:27:48PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> No callers left that have already disabled RCU.
>
> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel)
Acked-by: Mark Rutland
Mark.
> ---
> kernel/time/tick-broadcast-hrtimer.c | 29 -
>
e authored that commit]
Makes sense to me:
Acked-by: Mark Rutland
Mark.
> ---
> arch/arm64/kernel/smp.c |4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/smp.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/smp.c
> @@ -865,7 +865,7 @@ static void do_han
On Wed, Jun 08, 2022 at 04:27:38PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> All callers should still have RCU enabled.
IIUC with that true we should be able to drop the RCU_NONIDLE() from
drivers/perf/arm_pmu.c, as we only needed that for an invocation via a pm
notifier.
I should be able to give that a
On Wed, Jun 08, 2022 at 04:27:37PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> --- a/kernel/time/tick-broadcast.c
> +++ b/kernel/time/tick-broadcast.c
> @@ -622,9 +622,13 @@ struct cpumask *tick_get_broadcast_onesh
> * to avoid a deep idle transition as we are about to get the
> * broadcast IPI right away.
On Wed, Jun 08, 2022 at 04:27:23PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Hi All! (omg so many)
Hi Peter,
Sorry for the delay; my plate has also been rather full recently. I'm beginning
to page this in now.
> These here few patches mostly clear out the utter mess that is cpuidle vs
> rcuidle.
>
> At
On Fri, Jul 02, 2021 at 09:00:22AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Fri, 2021-07-02 at 13:22 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 22, 2021 at 05:42:49PM +0800, Zhu Lingshan wrote:
> > > diff --git a/arch/x86/events/core.c b/arch/x86/events/core.c
> []
> > > @@ -90,6 +90,27 @@
On Wed, Dec 09, 2020 at 07:54:26PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 09 2020 at 18:15, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > In arch/x86/kernel/apic/io_apic.c's timer_irq_works() we do:
> >
> > local_irq_save(flags);
> > local_irq_enable();
> &
On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 12:59:43PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 12:46:23PM +0100, Juergen Gross wrote:
> > +static __always_inline void arch_local_irq_restore(unsigned long flags)
> > +{
> > + if (!arch_irqs_disabled_flags(flags))
> > +
On Wed, Dec 09, 2020 at 01:27:10PM +, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 22, 2020 at 01:44:53PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > On Sat, Nov 21, 2020 at 10:55 PM Jürgen Groß wrote:
> > > On 20.11.20 12:59, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > > If someone we
On Sun, Nov 22, 2020 at 01:44:53PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 21, 2020 at 10:55 PM Jürgen Groß wrote:
> >
> > On 20.11.20 12:59, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 12:46:23PM +0100, Juergen Gross wrote:
> > >> +static __always_inline void
On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 01:44:52PM -0500, Pavel Tatashin wrote:
> We currently duplicate the logic to enable/disable uaccess via TTBR0,
> with C functions and assembly macros. This is a maintenenace burden
> and is liable to lead to subtle bugs, so let's get rid of the assembly
> macros, and
On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 11:09:35AM -0500, Pavel Tatashin wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 11:03 AM Mark Rutland wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 10:31:54AM -0500, Pavel Tatashin wrote:
> > > On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 10:12 AM Mark Rutland
> > > wrote:
>
On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 10:31:54AM -0500, Pavel Tatashin wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 10:12 AM Mark Rutland wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 09:24:06PM -0500, Pavel Tatashin wrote:
> > > The __uaccess_ttbr0_disable and __uaccess_ttbr0_enable,
> > > are t
On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 10:10:07AM -0500, Pavel Tatashin wrote:
> Hi Mark,
>
> Thank you for reviewing this work.
> > The 'arch_' prefix should probably be 'asm_' (or have an '_asm' suffix),
> > since this is entirely local to the arch code, and even then should only
> > be called from the C
On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 09:24:06PM -0500, Pavel Tatashin wrote:
> The __uaccess_ttbr0_disable and __uaccess_ttbr0_enable,
> are the last two macros defined in asm-uaccess.h.
>
> Replace them with C wrappers and call C functions from
> kernel_entry and kernel_exit.
For now, please leave those
Hi Pavel,
On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 09:24:05PM -0500, Pavel Tatashin wrote:
> Replace the uaccess_ttbr0_disable/uaccess_ttbr0_enable via
> inline variants, and remove asm macros.
A commit message should provide rationale, rather than just a
description of the patch. Something like:
| We currently
On Tue, Oct 01, 2019 at 03:39:41PM +0100, Julien Grall wrote:
> On 01/10/2019 15:33, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 07, 2019 at 11:05:45AM +0100, Julien Grall wrote:
> > > On 9/6/19 6:20 PM, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> > > > On 06/09/2019 17:00, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
Hi Julien,
On Sat, Sep 07, 2019 at 11:05:45AM +0100, Julien Grall wrote:
> On 9/6/19 6:20 PM, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> > On 06/09/2019 17:00, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 5:55 PM Andrew Cooper
> > > wrote:
> > > > On 06/09/2019 16:39, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > > >
25 matches
Mail list logo
