Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 15 Sep 2015 16:38:18 -0700 | From | "Paul E. McKenney" <> | Subject | Re: [4.2] commit d59cfc09c32 (sched, cgroup: replace signal_struct->group_rwsem with a global percpu_rwsem) causes regression for libvirt/kvm |
| |
On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 06:28:11PM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, > > On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 02:38:30PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > I did take a shot at adding the rcu_sync stuff during this past merge > > window, but it did not converge quickly enough to make it. It looks > > quite good for the next merge window. There have been changes in most > > of the relevant areas, so probably best to just try them and see which > > works best. > > Heh, I'm having a bit of trouble following. Are you saying that the > changes would be too big for -stable? If so, I'll send out reverts of > the culprit patches and then reapply them for this cycle so that it > can land together with the rcu changes in the next merge window, but > it'd be great to find out whether the rcu changes are enough for the > issue that Christian is seeing to go away. If not, I'll switch to a > different locking scheme and mark those patches w/ stable tag.
Well, the decision as to what is too big for -stable is owned by the -stable maintainers, not by me.
I am suggesting trying the options and seeing what works best, then working to convince people as needed.
Thanx, Paul
| |