From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>,
James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>,
Quentin Perret <qperret@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] sched/preempt: Prepare for supporting !CONFIG_GENERIC_ENTRY dynamic preemption
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2021 14:50:32 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210921135032.GB35846@C02TD0UTHF1T.local> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YUmFUkk4idIZENAk@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 09:10:10AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 01:32:34AM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > There is no need to force dynamic preemption to depend on the generic
> > entry code. The latter is convenient but not mandatory. An architecture
> > that doesn't support it just need to provide a static call on its
> > kernel IRQ exit preemption path.
>
> True; but at the same time ARM64 is also moving to generic entry. Mark?
That's the aspiration, but it's going to take a while to rework the
arm64 and common code. So far I've just been focusing on the groundwork
of moving stuff out of asm so that we can see the wood for the trees.
Generally my preference would be to move things over in stages, to avoid
a flag day where there's the potential for many things to break
simultaneously. So if this is relatively self contained, I think it
maybe worthwhile to do on its own, but I don't have very strong feelings
on that.
Thanks,
Mark.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-09-21 13:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-09-20 23:32 [PATCH 0/4] arm64: Support dynamic preemption Frederic Weisbecker
2021-09-20 23:32 ` [PATCH 1/4] sched/preempt: Prepare for supporting !CONFIG_GENERIC_ENTRY " Frederic Weisbecker
2021-09-21 7:10 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-09-21 13:50 ` Mark Rutland [this message]
2021-09-20 23:32 ` [PATCH 2/4] arm64: implement support for static call trampolines Frederic Weisbecker
2021-09-21 7:09 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-09-21 14:44 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2021-09-21 15:08 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-09-21 15:33 ` Mark Rutland
2021-09-21 15:55 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2021-09-21 16:28 ` Mark Rutland
2021-09-25 17:46 ` David Laight
2021-09-27 8:58 ` Mark Rutland
2021-09-21 16:10 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2021-09-20 23:32 ` [PATCH 3/4] arm64: Implement IRQ exit preemption static call for dynamic preemption Frederic Weisbecker
2021-09-20 23:32 ` [PATCH 4/4] arm64: Implement HAVE_PREEMPT_DYNAMIC Frederic Weisbecker
2021-10-25 12:20 [PATCH 0/4] arm64: Support dynamic preemption v2 Frederic Weisbecker
2021-10-25 12:20 ` [PATCH 1/4] sched/preempt: Prepare for supporting !CONFIG_GENERIC_ENTRY dynamic preemption Frederic Weisbecker
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20210921135032.GB35846@C02TD0UTHF1T.local \
--to=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=ardb@kernel.org \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=frederic@kernel.org \
--cc=james.morse@arm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=qperret@google.com \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.