Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1671941 > unrolled thread

[PATCH 0/3] some scheduler code movements

Started byNicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@linaro.org>
First post2017-06-21 20:40 +0200
Last post2017-06-22 19:30 +0200
Articles 5 — 2 participants

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

Contents

  [PATCH 0/3] some scheduler code movements Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@linaro.org> - 2017-06-21 20:40 +0200
    Re: [PATCH 0/3] some scheduler code movements Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> - 2017-06-22 10:40 +0200
      Re: [PATCH 0/3] some scheduler code movements Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@linaro.org> - 2017-06-22 14:40 +0200
        Re: [PATCH 0/3] some scheduler code movements Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> - 2017-06-22 16:10 +0200
          Re: [PATCH 0/3] some scheduler code movements Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@linaro.org> - 2017-06-22 19:30 +0200

#1671941 — [PATCH 0/3] some scheduler code movements

FromNicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@linaro.org>
Date2017-06-21 20:40 +0200
Subject[PATCH 0/3] some scheduler code movements
Message-ID<tUSy6-1pG-19@gated-at.bofh.it>
On Wed, 21 Jun 2017, Ingo Molnar wrote:

> I've applied the first patch to the scheduler tree yesterday, but the other
> changes unfortunately conflicted with other pending scheduler work - could
> you please re-post the other 3 patches on top of tip:sched/core?

Sure, here they are.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1672416

FromIngo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Date2017-06-22 10:40 +0200
Message-ID<tV5OG-29T-15@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1671941
* Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@linaro.org> wrote:

> On Wed, 21 Jun 2017, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> > I've applied the first patch to the scheduler tree yesterday, but the other
> > changes unfortunately conflicted with other pending scheduler work - could
> > you please re-post the other 3 patches on top of tip:sched/core?
> 
> Sure, here they are.

Hm, what tree is this against? First patch won't apply to the latest 
tip:sched/core:

 patching file kernel/sched/core.c
 Hunk #7 succeeded at 5253 (offset -2 lines).
 Hunk #8 FAILED at 5285.
 Hunk #9 succeeded at 5581 (offset 1 line).
 Hunk #10 succeeded at 6485 (offset 1 line).
 1 out of 10 hunks FAILED -- rejects in file kernel/sched/core.c

Thanks,

	Ingo

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1672595

FromNicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@linaro.org>
Date2017-06-22 14:40 +0200
Message-ID<tV9yX-4Hs-35@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1672416
On Thu, 22 Jun 2017, Ingo Molnar wrote:

> 
> * Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@linaro.org> wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, 21 Jun 2017, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > 
> > > I've applied the first patch to the scheduler tree yesterday, but the other
> > > changes unfortunately conflicted with other pending scheduler work - could
> > > you please re-post the other 3 patches on top of tip:sched/core?
> > 
> > Sure, here they are.
> 
> Hm, what tree is this against? First patch won't apply to the latest 
> tip:sched/core:
> 
>  patching file kernel/sched/core.c
>  Hunk #7 succeeded at 5253 (offset -2 lines).
>  Hunk #8 FAILED at 5285.
>  Hunk #9 succeeded at 5581 (offset 1 line).
>  Hunk #10 succeeded at 6485 (offset 1 line).
>  1 out of 10 hunks FAILED -- rejects in file kernel/sched/core.c

That's against my copy of tip/sched/core as of yesterday:

commit f11cc0760b8397e0d230122606421b6a96e9f869
Author:     Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>
AuthorDate: Wed Jun 14 19:37:30 2017 -0700
Commit:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
CommitDate: Tue Jun 20 12:48:37 2017 +0200

    sched/core: Drop the unused try_get_task_struct() helper function

on which I pre-applied my previous patch #1/4 ("cpuset/sched: cpuset 
makes sense for SMP only") you said having already applied on your side 
but that didn't show up in the publicly visible sched/core yet.


Nicolas

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1672654

FromIngo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Date2017-06-22 16:10 +0200
Message-ID<tVaY1-5Mw-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1672595
* Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@linaro.org> wrote:

> On Thu, 22 Jun 2017, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> > 
> > * Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@linaro.org> wrote:
> > 
> > > On Wed, 21 Jun 2017, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > 
> > > > I've applied the first patch to the scheduler tree yesterday, but the other
> > > > changes unfortunately conflicted with other pending scheduler work - could
> > > > you please re-post the other 3 patches on top of tip:sched/core?
> > > 
> > > Sure, here they are.
> > 
> > Hm, what tree is this against? First patch won't apply to the latest 
> > tip:sched/core:
> > 
> >  patching file kernel/sched/core.c
> >  Hunk #7 succeeded at 5253 (offset -2 lines).
> >  Hunk #8 FAILED at 5285.
> >  Hunk #9 succeeded at 5581 (offset 1 line).
> >  Hunk #10 succeeded at 6485 (offset 1 line).
> >  1 out of 10 hunks FAILED -- rejects in file kernel/sched/core.c
> 
> That's against my copy of tip/sched/core as of yesterday:
> 
> commit f11cc0760b8397e0d230122606421b6a96e9f869
> Author:     Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>
> AuthorDate: Wed Jun 14 19:37:30 2017 -0700
> Commit:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
> CommitDate: Tue Jun 20 12:48:37 2017 +0200
> 
>     sched/core: Drop the unused try_get_task_struct() helper function
> 
> on which I pre-applied my previous patch #1/4 ("cpuset/sched: cpuset 
> makes sense for SMP only") you said having already applied on your side 
> but that didn't show up in the publicly visible sched/core yet.

I see where the mismatch comes from - I applied this one from your earlier 
patches:

  f5832c1998af: sched/core: Omit building stop_sched_class when !SMP

... thus #1/4 was missing from my stack of patches. I'll apply that too and 
re-try, no need to resend.

Thanks,

	Ingo

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1672903

FromNicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@linaro.org>
Date2017-06-22 19:30 +0200
Message-ID<tVe5A-7Lh-37@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1672654
On Thu, 22 Jun 2017, Ingo Molnar wrote:

> * Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@linaro.org> wrote:
> 
> > That's against my copy of tip/sched/core as of yesterday:
> > 
> > commit f11cc0760b8397e0d230122606421b6a96e9f869
> > Author:     Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>
> > AuthorDate: Wed Jun 14 19:37:30 2017 -0700
> > Commit:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
> > CommitDate: Tue Jun 20 12:48:37 2017 +0200
> > 
> >     sched/core: Drop the unused try_get_task_struct() helper function
> > 
> > on which I pre-applied my previous patch #1/4 ("cpuset/sched: cpuset 
> > makes sense for SMP only") you said having already applied on your side 
> > but that didn't show up in the publicly visible sched/core yet.
> 
> I see where the mismatch comes from - I applied this one from your earlier 
> patches:
> 
>   f5832c1998af: sched/core: Omit building stop_sched_class when !SMP
> 
> ... thus #1/4 was missing from my stack of patches. I'll apply that too and 
> re-try, no need to resend.

OK. Let me know if you still have difficulties.


Nicolas

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web