[MODERATED] Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] performance walnuts

On Thu, Mar 07, 2019 at 01:42:12PM -0800, speck for mark gross wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 07, 2019 at 03:13:17PM +0100, speck for Greg KH wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 06, 2019 at 12:56:47PM +0100, speck for Greg KH wrote:
> > > On Wed, Mar 06, 2019 at 10:23:52AM +0100, speck for Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 5 Mar 2019, speck for Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > Or whatever shiney new name they ought to get.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Apparently the intent is to have these patches magically appears in source
> > > > > repos on the 12th.
> > > > 
> > > > I made them magically appear in the speck repo:
> > > > 
> > > >   cvs.ou.linutronix.de:linux/speck/linux tsx-5.0
> > > > 
> > > > and backports in the branches tsx-4.20, tsx-4.19, tsx-4.14. Git bundles
> > > > are attached.
> > > > 
> > > > I leave the dead kernel backports to the honorable members of the Kernel
> > > > Necrophilia cult as usual.
> > > 
> > > Many thanks for doing these backports.  I'll use them for the stable
> > > updates next week.  As for kernels older than 4.14, I'll maybe try
> > > 4.9 on my own...
> > 
> > Attached below is the 4 patches backported to 4.9.y.  They build for me,
> > but I have no real way to test them (I didn't even boot them.)
> > 
> > If anyone cares about 4.9.y, can they test these out?  Note, all of the
> > major changes was in the last patch (see my sysfs rant for why that was
> > so).
> 
> I'm setting up a tree to run the same test cases we have been running on
> Peter's patch set recently.

Great, thanks!

As for 4.4.y, no, I'm not going to do patches for that tree.  If people
really want that, we can work on them after-the-fact on the stable
mailing list.  Hopefully no one is still using 4.4.y on x86 systems
anymore (except for enterprise kernels of course...)

thanks,

greg k-h