Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Tue, 11 Jul 2023 11:30:12 -0500
From:   David Vernet <void@manifault.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@redhat.com,
        juri.lelli@redhat.com, vincent.guittot@linaro.org,
        dietmar.eggemann@arm.com, rostedt@goodmis.org, bsegall@google.com,
        mgorman@suse.de, bristot@redhat.com, vschneid@redhat.com,
        gautham.shenoy@amd.com, kprateek.nayak@amd.com, aaron.lu@intel.com,
        clm@meta.com, tj@kernel.org, roman.gushchin@linux.dev,
        kernel-team@meta.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 7/7] sched: Move shared_runq to
 __{enqueue,dequeue}_entity()
Message-ID: <20230711163012.GC389526@maniforge>
References: <20230710200342.358255-1-void@manifault.com>
 <20230710200342.358255-8-void@manifault.com>
 <20230711105136.GH3062772@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20230711105136.GH3062772@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/2.2.10 (2023-03-25)
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Jul 11, 2023 at 12:51:36PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 
> 
> Ufff.. so I see how you ended up with the series in this form, but I
> typically prefer to have less back and forth. Perhaps fold back at least
> this last patch?

Sure, will do. I kept them separate so we could drop this patch from the
series if we didn't want it, but given that benchmarks seem to only
improve with this (if we also shard), I'll just fold this in with [0]
and the patch following it.

[0]: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230710200342.358255-5-void@manifault.com/