On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 07:22:34PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Nov 2017 10:33:17 -0500
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 09:33:52AM -0500, [email protected] wrote:
> > > On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 11:57:51PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 20 Nov 2017 23:02:07 -0500
> > > > Steven Rostedt <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Ideally, I would like to stay close to what upstream -rt does. Would
> > > > > you be able to backport the 4.11-rt patch?
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm currently working on releasing 4.9-rt and 4.4-rt with the latest
> > > > > backports. I could easily add this one too.
> > > >
> > > > Speaking of which. I just backported this patch to 4.4-rt. Is this what
> > > > you are talking about?
> > >
> > > Yes it is.
> > > Thanks for finding that!
> > > Joe
> >
> > I spoke too fast. You will a variant of my one-liner fix
> > when you backport the 4.11.12-r16 patch:
> >
> > rt-Increase-decrease-the-nr-of-migratory-tasks-when-.patch
> >
> > to 4.9-rt and 4.4-rt. The fix of interest is the introduction of
> >
> > p->nr_cpus_allowed = cpumask_weight(&p->cpus_mask);
> >
> > to migrate_enable_update_cpus_allowed().
>
> You totally confused me here.
>
> Hmm, that patch isn't marked for stable. I'm guessing that it should be
> backported.
>
> Now are you saying your patch still needs to be applied if we backport
> this patch? Or does your patch need to be applied to what I have
> already done?
>
> I want to release 4.4-rt (and 4.9-rt) this week so let me know.
Hi Steve,
Just porting that other patch should do the trick. Or you can just apply
my patch, I know that one works as it has actually been tested.
Joe
From 1585357790102572351@xxx Wed Nov 29 00:23:26 +0000 2017
X-GM-THRID: 1584176322889836856
X-Gmail-Labels: Inbox,Category Forums,HistoricalUnread