From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, x86 <x86@kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
Linux Arch Mailing List <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>,
"linux-s390@vger.kernel.org" <linux-s390@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: Is THREAD_INFO_IN_TASK appropriate for -mm for 4.8?
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2016 12:22:41 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160719112223.GA20476@leverpostej> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CALCETrUf_7=Tr4JrDj+3UPT5kUT1MsRtypvfqkOg_MVHAJu=PA@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 04:47:39PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> Hi all-
>
> There are four core patches needed for the THREAD_INFO_IN_TASK thing,
> and they apply cleanly to -mm now. The x86 patch to flip the feature
> on does not apply cleanly anywhere because it depends on changes in
> -tip *and* in -mm. I'd like to get all of this as well as the rest of
> the vmap-stacks stuff in by 4.9, but I'm wondering if it might make
> sense to get the core THREAD_INFO_IN_TASK stuff into -mm for 4.8
> instead.
>
> Pros:
> - It reduces the amount of core code that -tip will have to carry until 4.9.
> - It may benefit other architectures. Christian Borntraeger
> expressed an interest in enabling the feature for s390, but it'll be
> awkward for him until the core bit landed. Similarly, arm64 seems to
> be interested.
This would probably be useful for arm64.
There's still a reasonable amount to figure out (e.g. [1,2]), so from my
PoV this is a nice-to-have, but there's no pressure.
Thanks,
Mark.
[1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/7/11/193
[2] https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/7/11/483
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: mark.rutland@arm.com (Mark Rutland)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Is THREAD_INFO_IN_TASK appropriate for -mm for 4.8?
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2016 12:22:41 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160719112223.GA20476@leverpostej> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CALCETrUf_7=Tr4JrDj+3UPT5kUT1MsRtypvfqkOg_MVHAJu=PA@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 04:47:39PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> Hi all-
>
> There are four core patches needed for the THREAD_INFO_IN_TASK thing,
> and they apply cleanly to -mm now. The x86 patch to flip the feature
> on does not apply cleanly anywhere because it depends on changes in
> -tip *and* in -mm. I'd like to get all of this as well as the rest of
> the vmap-stacks stuff in by 4.9, but I'm wondering if it might make
> sense to get the core THREAD_INFO_IN_TASK stuff into -mm for 4.8
> instead.
>
> Pros:
> - It reduces the amount of core code that -tip will have to carry until 4.9.
> - It may benefit other architectures. Christian Borntraeger
> expressed an interest in enabling the feature for s390, but it'll be
> awkward for him until the core bit landed. Similarly, arm64 seems to
> be interested.
This would probably be useful for arm64.
There's still a reasonable amount to figure out (e.g. [1,2]), so from my
PoV this is a nice-to-have, but there's no pressure.
Thanks,
Mark.
[1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/7/11/193
[2] https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/7/11/483
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-07-19 11:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-07-18 23:47 Is THREAD_INFO_IN_TASK appropriate for -mm for 4.8? Andy Lutomirski
2016-07-18 23:47 ` Andy Lutomirski
2016-07-19 8:25 ` Christian Borntraeger
2016-07-19 8:25 ` Christian Borntraeger
2016-07-25 14:26 ` Heiko Carstens
2016-07-25 14:26 ` Heiko Carstens
2016-07-19 11:22 ` Mark Rutland [this message]
2016-07-19 11:22 ` Mark Rutland
2016-07-20 7:44 ` Ingo Molnar
2016-07-20 7:44 ` Ingo Molnar
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20160719112223.GA20476@leverpostej \
--to=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=borntraeger@de.ibm.com \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-s390@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=luto@kernel.org \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.