On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 7:55 AM, Sasha Levin <sasha.le...@oracle.com> wrote: > > I've ran a bisection again and ended up at the same commit as Jet Chen (the > commit > unfortunately already made it to Linus's tree).
Ok, I'm going to revert that commit. The games it plays with cpu numbers and preemption make me worried, and it looks silly. If the only reason for that patch is interrupt latency, then if the "preempt_disable()" had been done *before* restoring irq's, none of those "let's reload the CPU number" games would have been necessary, and the patch could have been smaller. So even if that is the solution to the problems people report, it's actually *better* to just revert the patch entirely, and try again with a smaller and simpler version, rather than try to change the patch after-the-fact. Linus -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/