Hi Sebastian, Peter

Thursday, January 7, 2021 11:29 PM, Sebastian Siewior wrote:

On 2021-01-07 11:45:39 [+0100], Peter Zijlstra wrote:

quoted

On Thu, Jan 07, 2021 at 05:18:41PM +0800, Ran Wang wrote:

quoted

+
+			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?

I had a similar patch in -RT and dropped it in v5.10-rc7-rt16.
It was added because RT couldn't boot since creating the boot-threads didn't work before the ksoftirqd was up. This was fixed by commit
   26c7295be0c5e ("kthread: Do not preempt current task if it is going to call schedule()")

I tried applying above commit to linux-5.6.y-rt, it could resolve my problem on LX2160ARDB, THANKS!

and live was good again.
tglx (also) suggested to add HRTIMER_MODE_HARD unconditionally (it looked at SYSTEM_STATE back then) and I was only worried some
abuse via userland.

Got it.

Regards,
Ran

This sleep can be triggered by ptrace/strace() and with brief testing I can trigger the sleep there but I don't get it anywhere near where I
would notice it with cyclictest.

Sebastian