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
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))
> >
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
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
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,
5 matches
Mail list logo