Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Wed, 29 Nov 2017 09:24:48 -0500
From:   joe.korty@concurrent-rt.com
To:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] 4.4.86-rt99: fix sync breakage between nr_cpus_allowed
 and cpus_allowed
Message-ID: <20171129142448.GA18507@zipoli.concurrent-rt.com>
Reply-To: "Joe Korty" <joe.korty@concurrent-rt.com>
References: <20171115192529.GA14158@zipoli.concurrent-rt.com>
 <20171117174851.2a253785@gandalf.local.home>
 <20171120163040.GA25993@zipoli.concurrent-rt.com>
 <20171120230207.19a4bc14@vmware.local.home>
 <20171120235751.0424cf23@vmware.local.home>
 <20171121143352.GA25941@zipoli.concurrent-rt.com>
 <20171121153317.GA672@zipoli.concurrent-rt.com>
 <20171128192234.53d685d4@gandalf.local.home>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20171128192234.53d685d4@gandalf.local.home>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.8.3 (2017-05-23)
Received-SPF: None (protection.outlook.com: concurrent-rt.com does not
 designate permitted sender hosts)
SpamDiagnosticOutput: 1:99
SpamDiagnosticMetadata: NSPM
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Nov 2017 14:24:52.2909 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 72aae2cb-5bb8-4653-cb89-08d53734f4d9
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Id: 38747689-e6b0-4933-86c0-1116ee3ef93e
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: CY4PR11MB1478
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 07:22:34PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Nov 2017 10:33:17 -0500
> joe.korty@concurrent-rt.com wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 09:33:52AM -0500, joe.korty@concurrent-rt.com 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 <rostedt@goodmis.org> 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