Re: Potential scheduler regression

[Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>]

* Ben Guthro <ben@guthro.net> wrote:

> > If people have experience with these in the "enterprise" distros, or any other 
> > tree, and want to provide me with backported, and tested, patches, I'll be 
> > glad to consider them for stable kernels.
> >
> > thanks,
> >
> > greg k-h
> 
> I tried to do a simple cherry-pick of the suggested patches - but they
> apply against files that don't exist in the 4.9 series.

I think there are only two strategies to maintain a backport which work in the 
long run:

 - insist on the simplest fixes and pure cherry-picks

 - or pick up _everything_ to sync up the two versions.

The latter would mean a lot of commits - and I'm afraid it would also involve the 
scheduler header split-up, which literally involves hundreds of files plus 
perpetual build-breakage risk, so it's a no-no.

> In my release of 4.9 - I'm planning on doing the simpler revert of 1b568f0aab 
> that introduced the performance degradation, rather than pulling in lots of code 
> from newer kernels.

That sounds much saner - I'd even Ack that approach for -stable as a special 
exception, than to complicate things with excessive backports.

Thanks,

	Ingo