On Tue, 2014-04-08 at 17:53 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> OK; so as previously mentioned (Oct '13); I've entirely had it with
> skip_clock_update bugs, so I got angry and did the below.
Goody, kick butt take names ;-)
> Its not something I can merge, not least because it uses trace_printk(),
>
On Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 10:02:18AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> Prevent large wakeup latencies from being accounted to the wrong task.
>
> Cc:
> Signed-off-by:Mike Galbraith
> ---
> kernel/sched/core.c |7 ++-
> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> --- a/kernel/
On Tue, 2014-04-01 at 11:55 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Mike Galbraith wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 2014-03-31 at 11:37 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > > On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 11:27 AM, Mike Galbraith
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Oh, I didn't cc you because I wanted it applied instantly as ultra
* Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Mon, 2014-03-31 at 11:37 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 11:27 AM, Mike Galbraith
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Oh, I didn't cc you because I wanted it applied instantly as ultra
> > > critical, only because the chain of events might be of interes
On Mon, 2014-03-31 at 11:37 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 11:27 AM, Mike Galbraith
> wrote:
> >
> > Oh, I didn't cc you because I wanted it applied instantly as ultra
> > critical, only because the chain of events might be of interest.
>
> Ok. That was my main worry, sin
On Tue, 01 Apr 2014 05:10:14 +0200
Mike Galbraith wrote:
> Maybe it should just die as more potential trouble than it's worth. It
> has saved a pile of fastpath cycles, losing those again would be a
> shame. Accounting doesn't need to be perfect (is the enemy of good),
> but it does need to be a
On Mon, 2014-03-31 at 12:00 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 06:20:36AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> >
> > Cc:
> > Signed-off-by: Mike Galbraith
> > ---
> > kernel/sched/core.c |2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > --- a/kernel/sched
On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 11:27 AM, Mike Galbraith
wrote:
>
> Oh, I didn't cc you because I wanted it applied instantly as ultra
> critical, only because the chain of events might be of interest.
Ok. That was my main worry, since I was in the process or releasing
3.14, and I just couldn't tell if t
On Mon, 2014-03-31 at 09:13 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 30, 2014 at 9:20 PM, Mike Galbraith
> wrote:
> >
> > Point of being verbose was to make sure it was clear exactly how this
> > harmless little bug selectively kills large IO boxen..
>
> My point is that if you want it to be a
On Sun, Mar 30, 2014 at 9:20 PM, Mike Galbraith
wrote:
>
> Point of being verbose was to make sure it was clear exactly how this
> harmless little bug selectively kills large IO boxen..
My point is that if you want it to be applied hours before I make a
release, I need to be made aware of how cri
On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 06:20:36AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>
> Cc:
> Signed-off-by:Mike Galbraith
> ---
> kernel/sched/core.c |2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> @@ -118,7 +118,7 @@ void update_rq_c
On Sun, 2014-03-30 at 17:12 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> The patch looks fine, but the changelog is so chock-full of odd
> language that I don't know what to do with the patch.
>
> Is this actually a problem in real life, or just in the drug-induced
> wonderland that Mike was in when writing th
The patch looks fine, but the changelog is so chock-full of odd
language that I don't know what to do with the patch.
Is this actually a problem in real life, or just in the drug-induced
wonderland that Mike was in when writing the changelog?
Linus
On Sun, Mar 30, 2014 at 12:24 AM
13 matches
Mail list logo
