Re: [PATCH v9 00/13] support "task_isolation" mode for nohz_full

[Ingo Molnar]

* Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@xxxxxxxxxx> 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>