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]

Message-ID: <20110216082559.GA16529@elte.hu>
Date:	Wed, 16 Feb 2011 09:25:59 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
Cc:	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


* 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. So performance enhancements
should only be queued up if they fix problems bad enough that could rightfully
be sent to Linus in an -rc5+ timeframe as well.

This patch is borderline i guess so i have no problems with it - but we should be 
somewhat more conservative about this in the future.

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
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/