Re: [PATCH 0/4] Introduce QPW for per-cpu operations

[Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>]

On Wed 11-02-26 13:50:45, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 11, 2026 at 05:38:47PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Wed 11-02-26 09:01:12, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > > On Tue, Feb 10, 2026 at 03:01:10PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > [...]
> > > > What about !PREEMPT_RT? We have people running isolated workloads and
> > > > these sorts of pcp disruptions are really unwelcome as well. They do not
> > > > have requirements as strong as RT workloads but the underlying
> > > > fundamental problem is the same. Frederic (now CCed) is working on
> > > > moving those pcp book keeping activities to be executed to the return to
> > > > the userspace which should be taking care of both RT and non-RT
> > > > configurations AFAICS.
> > > 
> > > Michal,
> > > 
> > > For !PREEMPT_RT, _if_ you select CONFIG_QPW=y, then there is a kernel
> > > boot option qpw=y/n, which controls whether the behaviour will be
> > > similar (the spinlock is taken on local_lock, similar to PREEMPT_RT).
> > 
> > My bad. I've misread the config space of this.
> 
> My bad, actually. Its only CONFIG_QPW on the current patchset.

Yeah. PREEMPT_RT -> CONFIG_QPW=y and cmd line makes no difference
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs