[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <578DE406.9060902@de.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2016 10:25:42 +0200
From: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
x86 <x86@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Linux Arch Mailing List <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
"linux-s390@...r.kernel.org" <linux-s390@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: Is THREAD_INFO_IN_TASK appropriate for -mm for 4.8?
On 07/19/2016 01:47 AM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> Hi all-
>
> There are four core patches needed for the THREAD_INFO_IN_TASK thing,
> and they apply cleanly to -mm now. The x86 patch to flip the feature
> on does not apply cleanly anywhere because it depends on changes in
> -tip *and* in -mm. I'd like to get all of this as well as the rest of
> the vmap-stacks stuff in by 4.9, but I'm wondering if it might make
> sense to get the core THREAD_INFO_IN_TASK stuff into -mm for 4.8
> instead.
>
> Pros:
> - It reduces the amount of core code that -tip will have to carry until 4.9.
> - It may benefit other architectures. Christian Borntraeger
> expressed an interest in enabling the feature for s390, but it'll be
> awkward for him until the core bit landed. Similarly, arm64 seems to
> be interested.
I have not yet talked to Martin/Heiko about this, so not sure yet if and when
s390 is going to use this - so no pressure from our side yet.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists