[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CANaguZCqHnR8b_68SSA_rfdkinVg8vLH66jQ_GhMsdOjuUHe3g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2019 10:03:12 -0400
From: Vineeth Remanan Pillai <vpillai@...italocean.com>
To: Phil Auld <pauld@...hat.com>
Cc: Nishanth Aravamudan <naravamudan@...italocean.com>,
Julien Desfossez <jdesfossez@...italocean.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linux List Kernel Mailing <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Dario Faggioli <dfaggioli@...e.com>,
Frédéric Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Greg Kerr <kerrnel@...gle.com>, Aaron Lu <aaron.lwe@...il.com>,
Aubrey Li <aubrey.intel@...il.com>,
Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@...ux.intel.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v4 00/19] Core scheduling v4
Hi Phil,
> Unless I'm mistaken 7 of the first 8 of these went into sched/core
> and are now in linux (from v5.4-rc1). It may make sense to rebase on
> that and simplify the series.
>
Thanks a lot for pointing this out. We shall test on a rebased 5.4 RC
and post the changes soon, if the tests goes well. For v3, while rebasing
to an RC kernel, we saw perf regressions and hence did not check the
RC kernel this time. You are absolutely right that we can simplify the
patch series with 5.4 RC.
Thanks
Vineeth
Powered by blists - more mailing lists