From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Paul E. McKenney" Subject: Re: [4.2] commit d59cfc09c32 (sched, cgroup: replace signal_struct->group_rwsem with a global percpu_rwsem) causes regression for libvirt/kvm Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2015 21:35:47 -0700 Message-ID: <20150916043547.GY4029@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <55F8097A.7000206@de.ibm.com> <20150915130550.GC16853@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <55F81EE2.4090708@de.ibm.com> <55F84A6B.1010207@redhat.com> <55F88991.7040406@de.ibm.com> <20150915212622.GC495@htj.duckdns.org> <20150915213830.GR4029@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20150915222811.GD495@htj.duckdns.org> <20150915233818.GU4029@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20150916012415.GC25658@htj.duckdns.org> Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Christian Borntraeger , Paolo Bonzini , Peter Zijlstra , Ingo Molnar , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org >> Linux Kernel Mailing List" , KVM list , Oleg Nesterov To: Tejun Heo Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150916012415.GC25658@htj.duckdns.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 09:24:15PM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, Paul. > > On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 04:38:18PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > Well, the decision as to what is too big for -stable is owned by the > > -stable maintainers, not by me. > > Is it tho? Usually the subsystem maintainer knows the best and has > most say in it. I was mostly curious whether you'd think that the > changes would be too risky. If not, great. I do hope that they would listen to what I thought about it, but at the end of the day, it is the -stable maintainers who pull a given patch, or don't. > > I am suggesting trying the options and seeing what works best, then > > working to convince people as needed. > > Yeah, sure thing. Let's wait for Christian. Indeed. Is there enough benefit to risk jamming this thing into 4.3? I believe that 4.4 should be a no-brainer. Thanx, Paul