[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1811011016420.1642@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2018 10:17:40 +0100 (CET)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Daniel Wagner <wagi@...om.org>
cc: stable@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@...mens.com>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4.4] x86/kconfig: Fall back to ticket spinlocks
On Wed, 31 Oct 2018, Daniel Wagner wrote:
> Backporting all qspinlock related patches is very likely to introduce
> regressions on v4.4. Therefore, the recommended solution by Peter and
> Thomas is to drop back to ticket spinlocks for v4.4.
>
> Link :https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20180921120226.6xjgr4oiho22ex75@linutronix.de
> Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20180926110117.405325143@infradead.org
> Cc: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Acked-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@...mens.com>
> ---
>
> Thomas suggest following plan for fixing the issues on the varous
> stable trees:
>
> 4.4: Trivial by switching back to ticket locks.
>
> 4.9: Decide whether bringing back ticket locks or backporting all qrlock
> fixes. Sebastian has done the latter already and it's probably the
> right solution
>
> 4.14:
> 4.18: Backporting the qrlock fixes
>
> 4.19: Either the fix ends up in 4.19 final or it needs to be backported
Looks about right. Sebastian, can you please provide the 4.9 backport as a
patch series?
Thanks,
tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists