From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752601AbcHKNXe (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Aug 2016 09:23:34 -0400 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:51785 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751561AbcHKNXc (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Aug 2016 09:23:32 -0400 Subject: Re: Re: [GIT PULL V2] Changes for 4.8 To: Linus Torvalds References: <205a2d4c-6ce6-60af-3c89-3de648a21504@suse.com> Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List From: Juergen Gross Message-ID: Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2016 15:23:28 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 27/07/16 19:03, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 8:59 PM, Juergen Gross wrote: >> >> Support calling functions on dedicated physical cpu >> >> Some hardware (e.g. Dell Studio laptops) require special functions to >> be called on physical cpu 0 in order to avoid occasional hangs. When >> running as dom0 under Xen this could be achieved only via special boot >> parameters (vcpu pinning) limiting the hypervisor in it's scheduling >> decisions. >> >> This patch series is adding a generic function to be able to temporarily >> pin a (virtual) cpu to a dedicated physical cpu for executing above >> mentioned functions on that specific cpu. The drivers (dcdbas and i8k) >> requiring this functionality are modified accordingly. >> >> Unfortunately 2 of the 6 patches got no Acks as the maintainers didn't >> react in spite of multiple pings and resends. The core modification in >> the scheduler got an Ack from Peter and multiple tests showed no >> regressions. >> >> As the series is touching multiple subsystems I couldn't find anyone >> willing to take the series via his tree (I tried Ingo, Thomas, Peter). > > Thanks, this explanation was exactly what I was looking for. > > I'm still at two minds whether I'd prefer this kind of thing to come > in through the x86 maintainers, or possibly the virtualization people > who would actually use this. Or whether I'll just take it directly. > > I will take another look later when I've gotten rid of the big initial > flood of pull requests. Did you already decide what you want to do? Thanks, Juergen