From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.linutronix.de (146.0.238.70:993) by crypto-ml.lab.linutronix.de with IMAP4-SSL for ; 07 Mar 2019 22:07:00 -0000 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]) by Galois.linutronix.de with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1h21AJ-0002Mq-8O for speck@linutronix.de; Thu, 07 Mar 2019 23:06:59 +0100 Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2019 23:06:48 +0100 From: Greg KH Subject: [MODERATED] Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] performance walnuts Message-ID: <20190307220648.GA7544@kroah.com> References: <20190305212314.203073493@infradead.org> <20190306115647.GA24219@kroah.com> <20190307141317.GB18722@kroah.com> <20190307214212.GB658@mgross-MOBL.amr.corp.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20190307214212.GB658@mgross-MOBL.amr.corp.intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: speck@linutronix.de List-ID: On Thu, Mar 07, 2019 at 01:42:12PM -0800, speck for mark gross wrote: > On Thu, Mar 07, 2019 at 03:13:17PM +0100, speck for Greg KH wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 06, 2019 at 12:56:47PM +0100, speck for Greg KH wrote: > > > On Wed, Mar 06, 2019 at 10:23:52AM +0100, speck for Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > > On Tue, 5 Mar 2019, speck for Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > > > > > > Or whatever shiney new name they ought to get. > > > > > > > > > > Apparently the intent is to have these patches magically appears in source > > > > > repos on the 12th. > > > > > > > > I made them magically appear in the speck repo: > > > > > > > > cvs.ou.linutronix.de:linux/speck/linux tsx-5.0 > > > > > > > > and backports in the branches tsx-4.20, tsx-4.19, tsx-4.14. Git bundles > > > > are attached. > > > > > > > > I leave the dead kernel backports to the honorable members of the Kernel > > > > Necrophilia cult as usual. > > > > > > Many thanks for doing these backports. I'll use them for the stable > > > updates next week. As for kernels older than 4.14, I'll maybe try > > > 4.9 on my own... > > > > Attached below is the 4 patches backported to 4.9.y. They build for me, > > but I have no real way to test them (I didn't even boot them.) > > > > If anyone cares about 4.9.y, can they test these out? Note, all of the > > major changes was in the last patch (see my sysfs rant for why that was > > so). > > I'm setting up a tree to run the same test cases we have been running on > Peter's patch set recently. Great, thanks! As for 4.4.y, no, I'm not going to do patches for that tree. If people really want that, we can work on them after-the-fact on the stable mailing list. Hopefully no one is still using 4.4.y on x86 systems anymore (except for enterprise kernels of course...) thanks, greg k-h