Re: [EXT] Re: [PATCH v4 10/13] task_isolation: don't interrupt CPUs with tick_nohz_full_kick_cpu()

2020-10-16 Thread Alex Belits
On Tue, 2020-10-06 at 23:41 +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > On Sun, Oct 04, 2020 at 03:22:09PM +, Alex Belits wrote: > > On Thu, 2020-10-01 at 16:44 +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > > > > @@ -268,7 +269,8 @@ static void tick_nohz_full_kick(void) > > > > */ > > > > void

Re: [EXT] Re: [PATCH v4 10/13] task_isolation: don't interrupt CPUs with tick_nohz_full_kick_cpu()

2020-10-06 Thread Frederic Weisbecker
On Sun, Oct 04, 2020 at 03:22:09PM +, Alex Belits wrote: > > On Thu, 2020-10-01 at 16:44 +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > > > @@ -268,7 +269,8 @@ static void tick_nohz_full_kick(void) > > > */ > > > void tick_nohz_full_kick_cpu(int cpu) > > > { > > > - if (!tick_nohz_full_cpu(cpu)) > >

Re: [EXT] Re: [PATCH v4 10/13] task_isolation: don't interrupt CPUs with tick_nohz_full_kick_cpu()

2020-10-04 Thread Alex Belits
On Thu, 2020-10-01 at 16:44 +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > External Email > > --- > --- > On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 02:57:33PM +, Alex Belits wrote: > > From: Yuri Norov > > > > For nohz_full CPUs the desirable behavior is

Re: [PATCH v4 10/13] task_isolation: don't interrupt CPUs with tick_nohz_full_kick_cpu()

2020-10-01 Thread Frederic Weisbecker
On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 02:57:33PM +, Alex Belits wrote: > From: Yuri Norov > > For nohz_full CPUs the desirable behavior is to receive interrupts > generated by tick_nohz_full_kick_cpu(). But for hard isolation it's > obviously not desirable because it breaks isolation. > > This patch adds

[PATCH v4 10/13] task_isolation: don't interrupt CPUs with tick_nohz_full_kick_cpu()

2020-07-22 Thread Alex Belits
From: Yuri Norov For nohz_full CPUs the desirable behavior is to receive interrupts generated by tick_nohz_full_kick_cpu(). But for hard isolation it's obviously not desirable because it breaks isolation. This patch adds check for it. Signed-off-by: Yuri Norov [abel...@marvell.com: updated,