linux-kernel - Re: Patch "sched: Give CPU bound RT tasks preference" has been added to the 2.6.32-longterm tree

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 16 Feb 2011 09:55:04 +0100
From:	Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...il.com>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
CC:	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, gregkh@...e.de,
	srostedt <srostedt@...hat.com>, a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl,
	ghaskins@...ell.com, stable@...nel.org,
	stable-commits@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Patch "sched: Give CPU bound RT tasks preference" has been added
 to the 2.6.32-longterm tree

On 02/16/2011 09:25 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * Mike Galbraith <efault@....de> wrote:
> 
>> On Tue, 2011-02-15 at 18:02 -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>>> [ Added LKML ]
>>>
>>> On Tue, 2011-02-15 at 13:17 -0800, gregkh@...e.de wrote:
>>>> This is a note to let you know that I've just added the patch titled
>>>>
>>>>     sched: Give CPU bound RT tasks preference
>>>>
>>>> to the 2.6.32-longterm tree which can be found at:
>>>>     http://www.kernel.org/git/?p=linux/kernel/git/longterm/longterm-queue-2.6.32.git;a=summary
>>>>
>>>> The filename of the patch is:
>>>>      0006-sched-Give-CPU-bound-RT-tasks-preference.patch
>>>> and it can be found in the queue-2.6.32 subdirectory.
>>>>
>>>> If you, or anyone else, feels it should not be added to the 2.6.32 longterm tree,
>>>> please let <stable@...nel.org> know about it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> I don't mind this patch being added to the long term tree. But I'm
>>> curious about what is the criteria for adding changes to it? This is a
>>> performance improvement and not a critical bug fix.
>>
>> Yes, I added it for the performance.  .32-stable is enterprise beans and
>> biscuits.  Same reason I added the load balancing fixes, boxen won't
>> explode without them, but load balancing performs better with them.
> 
> We try to concentrate on regression fixes though.

Hi, I cannot fully agree with this. The question is who are "we" here?
If every packager using this stable tree is forced by users/customers to
take it anyway, it's better to have it in stable.

It has several reasons:
* It will have an eye of experts on them. Not that at distro providers
there are no experts, but the authors who are cced here know definitely
the code better.
* Not every packager has to duplicate others work.
* The stable tree changes constantly. Managing hundreds of patches
applied to a stable tree before kernels are being packaged is thus
sometimes a hell. Reducing this number is a good thing(TM).

regards,
-- 
js
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/