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;
Date:   Mon, 5 Sep 2022 10:46:41 +0200
From:   Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
To:     Guo Ren <guoren@kernel.org>
Cc:     Jisheng Zhang <jszhang@kernel.org>,
        Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>,
        Albert Ou <aou@eecs.berkeley.edu>,
        Anup Patel <anup@brainfault.org>,
        Atish Patra <atishp@atishpatra.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        kvm@vger.kernel.org, kvm-riscv@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/5] riscv: add lazy preempt support
Message-ID: <YxW3cZEhEideZon2@linutronix.de>
References: <20220831175920.2806-1-jszhang@kernel.org>
 <20220831175920.2806-5-jszhang@kernel.org>
 <CAJF2gTQMM50TZZ95XOY+Rgvm2hZ3nLxkYfaSW_2MvPiJeqTtJw@mail.gmail.com>
 <YxWYh5C5swlyobi2@linutronix.de>
 <CAJF2gTR=Cmcox5JrX2bB12MdmurY3vexSA6vw1cdXXbCNB8tXw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
In-Reply-To: <CAJF2gTR=Cmcox5JrX2bB12MdmurY3vexSA6vw1cdXXbCNB8tXw@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On 2022-09-05 16:33:54 [+0800], Guo Ren wrote:
> > There is "generic" code in the PREEMPT_RT patch doing that. The counter
> > is incremented/ decremented via preempt_lazy_enable()/disable() and one
> > of the user is migrate_disable()/enable().
> > Basically if a task is task_is_realtime() then NEED_RESCHED is set for
> > the wakeup. For the remaining states (SCHED_OTHER, =E2=80=A6) NEED_RESC=
HED_LAZY
> > is set for the wakeup. This can be delayed if the task is in a "preempt
> > disable lazy" section (similar to a preempt_disable() section) but a
> > task_is_realtime() can still be scheduled if needed.
> Okay, It should be [PATCH RT]. RISC-V would also move to GENERIC_ENTRY
> [1], so above assembly code would be replaced by generic one, right?

correct.

Sebastian