Re: Potential scheduler regression
From: Ben Guthro
Date: Thu Jul 13 2017 - 15:24:13 EST
On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 5:55 AM, Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 10:30:14AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>> * Ben Guthro <ben@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > > If people have experience with these in the "enterprise" distros, or any other
>> > > tree, and want to provide me with backported, and tested, patches, I'll be
>> > > glad to consider them for stable kernels.
>> > >
>> > > thanks,
>> > >
>> > > greg k-h
>> > I tried to do a simple cherry-pick of the suggested patches - but they
>> > apply against files that don't exist in the 4.9 series.
>> I think there are only two strategies to maintain a backport which work in the
>> long run:
>> - insist on the simplest fixes and pure cherry-picks
>> - or pick up _everything_ to sync up the two versions.
>> The latter would mean a lot of commits - and I'm afraid it would also involve the
>> scheduler header split-up, which literally involves hundreds of files plus
>> perpetual build-breakage risk, so it's a no-no.
>> > In my release of 4.9 - I'm planning on doing the simpler revert of 1b568f0aab
>> > that introduced the performance degradation, rather than pulling in lots of code
>> > from newer kernels.
>> That sounds much saner - I'd even Ack that approach for -stable as a special
>> exception, than to complicate things with excessive backports.
> Ok, I'll revert that for the next stable release after this one that is
> currently under review.
> greg k-h
Just for clarity - is the "next one" 4.9.38 (posted today for review)
- or the one following?