On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 07:22:34PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Tue, 21 Nov 2017 10:33:17 -0500 > joe.ko...@concurrent-rt.com wrote: > > > On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 09:33:52AM -0500, joe.ko...@concurrent-rt.com wrote: > > > On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 11:57:51PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > > > On Mon, 20 Nov 2017 23:02:07 -0500 > > > > Steven Rostedt <rost...@goodmis.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ideally, I would like to stay close to what upstream -rt does. Would > > > > > you be able to backport the 4.11-rt patch? > > > > > > > > > > I'm currently working on releasing 4.9-rt and 4.4-rt with the latest > > > > > backports. I could easily add this one too. > > > > > > > > Speaking of which. I just backported this patch to 4.4-rt. Is this what > > > > you are talking about? > > > > > > Yes it is. > > > Thanks for finding that! > > > Joe > > > > I spoke too fast. You will a variant of my one-liner fix > > when you backport the 4.11.12-r16 patch: > > > > rt-Increase-decrease-the-nr-of-migratory-tasks-when-.patch > > > > to 4.9-rt and 4.4-rt. The fix of interest is the introduction of > > > > p->nr_cpus_allowed = cpumask_weight(&p->cpus_mask); > > > > to migrate_enable_update_cpus_allowed(). > > You totally confused me here. > > Hmm, that patch isn't marked for stable. I'm guessing that it should be > backported. > > Now are you saying your patch still needs to be applied if we backport > this patch? Or does your patch need to be applied to what I have > already done? > > I want to release 4.4-rt (and 4.9-rt) this week so let me know.
Hi Steve, Just porting that other patch should do the trick. Or you can just apply my patch, I know that one works as it has actually been tested. Joe