From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932572AbbJNVSc (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Oct 2015 17:18:32 -0400 Received: from ns.horizon.com ([71.41.210.147]:19015 "HELO ns.horizon.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S932093AbbJNVSb (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Oct 2015 17:18:31 -0400 Date: 14 Oct 2015 17:18:27 -0400 Message-ID: <20151014211827.739.qmail@ns.horizon.com> From: "George Spelvin" To: jason.low2@hp.com, mingo@kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org, tglx@linutronix.de Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] timer: Improve itimers scalability Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, dave@stgolabs.net, fweisbec@gmail.com, hideaki.kimura@hpe.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux@horizon.com, oleg@redhat.com, paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, rostedt@goodmis.org, scott.norton@hpe.com, terry.rudd@hpe.com In-Reply-To: <1444849677-29330-1-git-send-email-jason.low2@hp.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org I'm going to give 4/4 a closer look to see if the races with timer expiration make more sense to me than last time around. (E.g. do CPU time signals even work in CONFIG_NO_HZ_FULL?) But although I haven't yet convinced myself the current code is right, the changes don't seem to make it any worse. So consider all four Reviewed-by: George Spelvin Thank you!