From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 00/13] support "task_isolation" mode for nohz_full Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2016 11:44:53 +0100 Message-ID: <20160113104453.GB9854@gmail.com> References: <1451936091-29247-1-git-send-email-cmetcalf@ezchip.com> <56941B86.9090009@ezchip.com> <20160112100708.GA15737@arm.com> <56953CBA.9090208@ezchip.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <56953CBA.9090208-d5a29ZRxExrQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-api-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Chris Metcalf Cc: Will Deacon , Gilad Ben Yossef , Steven Rostedt , Peter Zijlstra , Andrew Morton , Rik van Riel , Tejun Heo , Frederic Weisbecker , Thomas Gleixner , "Paul E. McKenney" , Christoph Lameter , Viresh Kumar , Catalin Marinas , Andy Lutomirski , Daniel Lezcano , linux-doc-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-api-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Mark Rutland List-Id: linux-api@vger.kernel.org * Chris Metcalf wrote: > (Adding Mark to cc's) > > On 01/12/2016 05:07 AM, Will Deacon wrote: > >On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 04:15:50PM -0500, Chris Metcalf wrote: > >>Ping! There has been no substantive feedback to this version of > >>the patch in the week since I posted it, which optimistically suggests > >>to me that people may be satisfied with it. If that's true, Frederic, > >>I assume this would be pulled into your tree? > >> > >>I have slightly updated the v9 patch series since this posting: > >> > >>[...] > >> > >>- Incorporated Mark Rutland's changes to convert arm64 > >> assembly to C code instead of using my own version. > >Please avoid queuing these patches -- the first is already in the arm64 > >queue for 4.5 and the second was found to introduce a substantial > >performance regression on the syscall entry/exit path. I think Mark had > >an updated version to address that, so it would be easier not to have > >an old version sitting in some other queue! > > I am not formally queueing them anywhere (like linux-next), though > now that you mention it, that's a pretty good idea - I'll talk to Steven > about that, assuming this merge window closes without the task > isolation stuff going in. NAK. Given the controversy, no way should this stuff go outside the primary trees it affects: the scheduler, timer, irq, etc. trees. We can merge this up in -tip once everyone is happy... but as I said, don't expect many replies before and during the merge window. Thanks, Ingo>