From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1755797AbdGKJzW (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Tue, 11 Jul 2017 05:55:22 -0400
Received: from mail.linuxfoundation.org ([140.211.169.12]:59494 "EHLO
        mail.linuxfoundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1755748AbdGKJzU (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Tue, 11 Jul 2017 05:55:20 -0400
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2017 11:55:12 +0200
From: Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Cc: Ben Guthro <ben@guthro.net>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Subject: Re: Potential scheduler regression
Message-ID: <20170711095512.GA15168@kroah.com>
References: <CAOvdn6UhFUG-NDBf5P9EqS+6UA6LCeDTw1aBbW-dbzPU3Z4T1A@mail.gmail.com>
 <20170705164850.lnziwloc6mko3mxo@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <CAOvdn6WHAqnyr4WFz3ogA8FAueVcASJGYZOBjit=diMud7N4mw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20170710092532.kzwgukzishwpzoq6@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20170710152629.GB13980@kroah.com>
 <CAOvdn6U0cFStU0-Sh=NkjNqjDW=y4iy_S7x0t=jnw__eY1ahOA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20170711083014.jpdpcbo6rlh5uuti@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20170711083014.jpdpcbo6rlh5uuti@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.8.3 (2017-05-23)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

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