Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Sender: Ingo Molnar <mingo.kernel.org@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 4 Aug 2022 10:55:12 +0200
From:   Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To:     Libo Chen <libo.chen@oracle.com>
Cc:     K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@amd.com>, peterz@infradead.org,
        vincent.guittot@linaro.org, mgorman@suse.de,
        tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com, 21cnbao@gmail.com,
        dietmar.eggemann@arm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        tglx@linutronix.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: no sync wakeup from interrupt context
Message-ID: <YuuJcFkUVUfDvcYB@gmail.com>
References: <20220711224704.1672831-1-libo.chen@oracle.com>
 <c50bdbfe-02ce-c1bc-c761-c95f8e216ca0@amd.com>
 <YufUj4klPKmKNj26@gmail.com>
 <82620137-5aa5-6cf1-f7aa-6a298e2f7856@oracle.com>
 <Yuo9Y4KvQQvvLC/r@gmail.com>
 <a9d666ae-0aa4-d79e-aac2-02573577b530@oracle.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <a9d666ae-0aa4-d79e-aac2-02573577b530@oracle.com>
Precedence: bulk


* Libo Chen <libo.chen@oracle.com> wrote:

> Oh yes, I have no issue with holding the patch back until the regression 
> is fully understood. I was just a little confused on your reference to 
> Mel's comments. [...]

Yeah, that was just me getting confused about which change Mel was 
referring to, as I was looking for external confirmation saying what I was 
thinking about the patch: in_task()/in_interrupt() heuristics rarely do 
well. ;-)

> Anyway, I will post my investigation soon.

Thx - and measurements will always be able to override any negative 
expectations of mine, so my comments weren't a NAK.

Thanks,

	Ingo