[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20191007162031.GA7676@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2019 18:20:31 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Yauheni Kaliuta <yauheni.kaliuta@...hat.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] vtime: Remove pair of seqcount on context switch
* Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org> wrote:
> Extracted from a larger queue that fixes kcpustat on nohz_full, these
> two patches have value on their own as they remove two write barriers
> on nohz_full context switch.
>
> Frederic Weisbecker (2):
> vtime: Rename vtime_account_system() to vtime_account_kernel()
> vtime: Spare a seqcount lock/unlock cycle on context switch
>
> arch/ia64/kernel/time.c | 4 +--
> arch/powerpc/kernel/time.c | 6 ++--
> arch/s390/kernel/vtime.c | 4 +--
> include/linux/context_tracking.h | 4 +--
> include/linux/vtime.h | 38 ++++++++++++------------
> kernel/sched/cputime.c | 50 ++++++++++++++++++--------------
> 6 files changed, 57 insertions(+), 49 deletions(-)
Which tree is this against? Doesn't apply cleanly to v5.4-rc2 nor v5.3.
Does it have any prereqs perhaps?
Thanks,
Ingo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists