On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 08:54:07AM +0200, Greg KH wrote: > On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 03:24:02PM -0400, Ben Guthro wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 5:55 AM, Greg KH <gre...@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > > On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 10:30:14AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > >> > > >> * Ben Guthro <b...@guthro.net> 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. > > > > > > thanks, > > > > > > greg k-h > > > > Greg, > > > > Just for clarity - is the "next one" 4.9.38 (posted today for review) > > - or the one following? > > Doh, I forgot it for this release, sorry about that, will try to get to > it for the next one after this.
Now reverted. thanks, greg k-h
