From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Peter Zijlstra Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] stop_machine: yield CPU during stop machine Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2016 10:47:47 +0200 Message-ID: <20161024084747.GE3102@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> References: <1477051138-1610-1-git-send-email-borntraeger@de.ibm.com> <1477051138-1610-3-git-send-email-borntraeger@de.ibm.com> <20161021120536.GC3142@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20161022110636.410f20bd@roar.ozlabs.ibm.com> <251574ff-13ba-c0df-76c3-cb7df30894cb@de.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <251574ff-13ba-c0df-76c3-cb7df30894cb@de.ibm.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org Errors-To: virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org To: Christian Borntraeger Cc: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390 , kvm@vger.kernel.org, xen-devel-request@lists.xenproject.org, Heiko Carstens , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Nicholas Piggin , virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, Noam Camus , Martin Schwidefsky , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org List-Id: linux-arch.vger.kernel.org On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 09:52:31AM +0200, Christian Borntraeger wrote: > Peter, I will fixup the patch set (I forgot to remove the lowlatency > in 2 places) and push it on my tree for linux-next. Lets see what happens. > Would the tip tree be the right place if things work out ok? I think so, you're touching a fair bit of kernel/locking/ and there's bound to be some conflicts with work there. So carrying it in the locking tree might be best. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([198.137.202.9]:57965 "EHLO bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S934212AbcJXIr4 (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Oct 2016 04:47:56 -0400 Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2016 10:47:47 +0200 From: Peter Zijlstra Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] stop_machine: yield CPU during stop machine Message-ID: <20161024084747.GE3102@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> References: <1477051138-1610-1-git-send-email-borntraeger@de.ibm.com> <1477051138-1610-3-git-send-email-borntraeger@de.ibm.com> <20161021120536.GC3142@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20161022110636.410f20bd@roar.ozlabs.ibm.com> <251574ff-13ba-c0df-76c3-cb7df30894cb@de.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <251574ff-13ba-c0df-76c3-cb7df30894cb@de.ibm.com> Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Christian Borntraeger Cc: Nicholas Piggin , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390 , linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, Heiko Carstens , Martin Schwidefsky , Noam Camus , virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, xen-devel-request@lists.xenproject.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <20161024084747.o0kPOJqHALY3BW77LAggUXbrtJKxJoOqFYmnbgORtcY@z> On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 09:52:31AM +0200, Christian Borntraeger wrote: > Peter, I will fixup the patch set (I forgot to remove the lowlatency > in 2 places) and push it on my tree for linux-next. Lets see what happens. > Would the tip tree be the right place if things work out ok? I think so, you're touching a fair bit of kernel/locking/ and there's bound to be some conflicts with work there. So carrying it in the locking tree might be best.