Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1686860
| From | Ben Guthro <ben@guthro.net> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: Potential scheduler regression |
| Date | 2017-07-13 21:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <u2RYe-1gM-21@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | (3 earlier) <u1DaW-3af-23@gated-at.bofh.it> <u1INk-6L7-21@gated-at.bofh.it> <u1J6H-6RW-43@gated-at.bofh.it> <u1YS6-8pa-7@gated-at.bofh.it> <u207w-Cy-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 5:55 AM, Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 10:30:14AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: >> >> * Ben Guthro <ben@guthro.net> wrote: >> >> > > If people have experience with these in the "enterprise" distros, or any other >> > > tree, and want to provide me with backported, and tested, patches, I'll be >> > > glad to consider them for stable kernels. >> > > >> > > thanks, >> > > >> > > greg k-h >> > >> > I tried to do a simple cherry-pick of the suggested patches - but they >> > apply against files that don't exist in the 4.9 series. >> >> I think there are only two strategies to maintain a backport which work in the >> long run: >> >> - insist on the simplest fixes and pure cherry-picks >> >> - or pick up _everything_ to sync up the two versions. >> >> The latter would mean a lot of commits - and I'm afraid it would also involve the >> scheduler header split-up, which literally involves hundreds of files plus >> perpetual build-breakage risk, so it's a no-no. >> >> > In my release of 4.9 - I'm planning on doing the simpler revert of 1b568f0aab >> > that introduced the performance degradation, rather than pulling in lots of code >> > from newer kernels. >> >> That sounds much saner - I'd even Ack that approach for -stable as a special >> exception, than to complicate things with excessive backports. > > Ok, I'll revert that for the next stable release after this one that is > currently under review. > > thanks, > > greg k-h Greg, Just for clarity - is the "next one" 4.9.38 (posted today for review) - or the one following? Thanks, Ben
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Potential scheduler regression Ben Guthro <ben@guthro.net> - 2017-07-05 17:50 +0200
Re: Potential scheduler regression Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2017-07-05 18:50 +0200
Re: Potential scheduler regression Ben Guthro <ben@guthro.net> - 2017-07-07 23:00 +0200
Re: Potential scheduler regression Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2017-07-10 11:30 +0200
Re: Potential scheduler regression Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> - 2017-07-10 17:30 +0200
Re: Potential scheduler regression Ben Guthro <ben@guthro.net> - 2017-07-10 17:50 +0200
Re: Potential scheduler regression Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> - 2017-07-11 10:40 +0200
Re: Potential scheduler regression Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> - 2017-07-11 12:00 +0200
Re: Potential scheduler regression Ben Guthro <ben@guthro.net> - 2017-07-13 21:30 +0200
Re: Potential scheduler regression Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> - 2017-07-14 09:00 +0200
csiph-web