From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND -rt] mm: perform lru_add_drain_all() remotely Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 17:59:44 +0200 Message-ID: <20160525155944.GA18036@linutronix.de> References: <20160509105037.1555d0e0@redhat.com> <20160512084230.GA19035@linutronix.de> <20160512095149.2a6f7357@redhat.com> <20160512144943.GD19035@linutronix.de> <20160512155202.46666531@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org, riel@redhat.com, tglx@linutronix.de, srostedt@redhat.com, williams@redhat.com To: Luiz Capitulino Return-path: Received: from www.linutronix.de ([62.245.132.108]:40927 "EHLO Galois.linutronix.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751022AbcEYP7r (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 May 2016 11:59:47 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160512155202.46666531@redhat.com> Sender: linux-rt-users-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: * Luiz Capitulino | 2016-05-12 15:52:02 [-0400]: >The alternative, which is what I had in mind, was to forward-port >this change to mainline when local_locks gets merged upstream. But >I guess this will only happen when sleeping spinlocks are merged? Yeah, I am not sure about the exact path. Sleeping locks are not required for this. Let me worry about this later. In the meantime I pick up this (your v2) in -RT. Sebastian