Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 11 Jul 2017 10:30:14 +0200 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: Potential scheduler regression |
| |
* Ben Guthro <ben@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.
Thanks,
Ingo
| |