[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87r1nxmotx.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org>
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2020 13:40:58 -0600
From: ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Bernd Edlinger <bernd.edlinger@...mail.de>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
Vasiliy Kulikov <segoon@...nwall.com>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>,
Sargun Dhillon <sargun@...gun.me>,
Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...ntu.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf: Break deadlock involving exec_update_mutex
Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net> writes:
> On Tue, 08 Dec 2020, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
>>I suppose I'll queue the below into tip/perf/core for next merge window,
>>unless you want it in a hurry?
>
> I'm thinking we'd still want Eric's series on top of this for the reader
> benefits of the lock.
We will see shortly what happens when the various branches all make it
into linux-next. The two changes don't conflict in principle so it
should not be a problem.
Eric
Powered by blists - more mailing lists