[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1430429197.2475.55.camel@j-VirtualBox>
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2015 14:26:37 -0700
From: Jason Low <jason.low2@...com>
To: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
Cc: Waiman Long <waiman.long@...com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Preeti U Murthy <preeti@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>,
Aswin Chandramouleeswaran <aswin@...com>,
Scott J Norton <scott.norton@...com>, jason.low2@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/5] sched, numa: Document usages of mm->numa_scan_seq
On Thu, 2015-04-30 at 11:54 -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> I also wonder why this patch is included in a set called
> "sched, timer: Improve scalability of itimers" ;)
Good point :)
The reason these first 2 patches were included in this patchset is
because patch 3 depended on patch 1 (particularly due to the
modifications to posix_cpu_timers_init_group() which happen to use
ACCESS_ONCE after initializing the thread_group_cputimer lock). Likewise
patch 2 depended on patch 1. Thus, I included these changes to make
applying these patches a bit simpler.
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists