linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/9] psi: pressure stall information for CPU, memory, and IO v4

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:   Mon, 17 Sep 2018 15:29:41 +0200
From:   peter enderborg <peter.enderborg@...y.com>
To:     Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
CC:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Daniel Drake <drake@...lessm.com>,
        Vinayak Menon <vinmenon@...eaurora.org>,
        Christopher Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
        Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>,
        Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>, linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <kernel-team@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/9] psi: pressure stall information for CPU, memory, and
 IO v4

Will it be part of the backport to 4.9 google android or is it for test only?
I guess that this patch is to big for the LTS tree.

On 09/07/2018 05:58 PM, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> Thanks for the new patchset! Backported to 4.9 and retested on ARMv8 8
> code system running Android. Signals behave as expected reacting to
> memory pressure, no jumps in "total" counters that would indicate an
> overflow/underflow issues. Nicely done!
>
> Tested-by: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>
>
> On Fri, Sep 7, 2018 at 8:09 AM, Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org> wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 07, 2018 at 01:04:07PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>> So yeah, grudingly acked. Did you want me to pick this up through the
>>> scheduler tree since most of this lives there?
>> Thanks for the ack.
>>
>> As for routing it, I'll leave that decision to you and Andrew. It
>> touches stuff all over, so it could result in quite a few conflicts
>> between trees (although I don't expect any of them to be non-trivial).