Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Thu, 7 Jan 2021 11:45:39 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     Ran Wang <ran.wang_1@nxp.com>
Cc:     Sebastian Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Jiafei Pan <jiafei.pan@nxp.com>,
        linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [RFC] rt: kernel/sched/core: fix kthread_park() pending
 too long when CPU un-plugged
Message-ID: <X/bmU4byS7k46zWM@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20210107091841.19798-1-ran.wang_1@nxp.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20210107091841.19798-1-ran.wang_1@nxp.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Jan 07, 2021 at 05:18:41PM +0800, Ran Wang wrote:
> +
> +			if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT) &&
> +			    !strncmp(p->comm, "ksoftirqd/", 10))
> +				schedule_hrtimeout(&to,
> +					HRTIMER_MODE_REL | HRTIMER_MODE_HARD);
> +			else
> +				schedule_hrtimeout(&to, HRTIMER_MODE_REL);

This is horrific, why did you not self-censor and spare me the mental
anguish of having to formulate a CoC compliant response?

It also violates coding style, but given the total lack of any sense,
that seems like a minor detail.

Why can't we use HRTIMER_MODE_HARD unconditionally?