[0/3] some scheduler code movements

Message ID 20170621182203.30626-1-nicolas.pitre@linaro.org
Headers show
Series
  • some scheduler code movements
Related show

Message

Nicolas Pitre June 21, 2017, 6:22 p.m.
On Wed, 21 Jun 2017, Ingo Molnar wrote:

> I've applied the first patch to the scheduler tree yesterday, but the other

> changes unfortunately conflicted with other pending scheduler work - could

> you please re-post the other 3 patches on top of tip:sched/core?


Sure, here they are.

Comments

Ingo Molnar June 22, 2017, 8:31 a.m. | #1
* Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@linaro.org> wrote:

> On Wed, 21 Jun 2017, Ingo Molnar wrote:

> 

> > I've applied the first patch to the scheduler tree yesterday, but the other

> > changes unfortunately conflicted with other pending scheduler work - could

> > you please re-post the other 3 patches on top of tip:sched/core?

> 

> Sure, here they are.


Hm, what tree is this against? First patch won't apply to the latest 
tip:sched/core:

 patching file kernel/sched/core.c
 Hunk #7 succeeded at 5253 (offset -2 lines).
 Hunk #8 FAILED at 5285.
 Hunk #9 succeeded at 5581 (offset 1 line).
 Hunk #10 succeeded at 6485 (offset 1 line).
 1 out of 10 hunks FAILED -- rejects in file kernel/sched/core.c

Thanks,

	Ingo
Nicolas Pitre June 22, 2017, 12:33 p.m. | #2
On Thu, 22 Jun 2017, Ingo Molnar wrote:

> 

> * Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@linaro.org> wrote:

> 

> > On Wed, 21 Jun 2017, Ingo Molnar wrote:

> > 

> > > I've applied the first patch to the scheduler tree yesterday, but the other

> > > changes unfortunately conflicted with other pending scheduler work - could

> > > you please re-post the other 3 patches on top of tip:sched/core?

> > 

> > Sure, here they are.

> 

> Hm, what tree is this against? First patch won't apply to the latest 

> tip:sched/core:

> 

>  patching file kernel/sched/core.c

>  Hunk #7 succeeded at 5253 (offset -2 lines).

>  Hunk #8 FAILED at 5285.

>  Hunk #9 succeeded at 5581 (offset 1 line).

>  Hunk #10 succeeded at 6485 (offset 1 line).

>  1 out of 10 hunks FAILED -- rejects in file kernel/sched/core.c


That's against my copy of tip/sched/core as of yesterday:

commit f11cc0760b8397e0d230122606421b6a96e9f869
Author:     Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>
AuthorDate: Wed Jun 14 19:37:30 2017 -0700
Commit:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
CommitDate: Tue Jun 20 12:48:37 2017 +0200

    sched/core: Drop the unused try_get_task_struct() helper function

on which I pre-applied my previous patch #1/4 ("cpuset/sched: cpuset 
makes sense for SMP only") you said having already applied on your side 
but that didn't show up in the publicly visible sched/core yet.


Nicolas
Ingo Molnar June 22, 2017, 2:07 p.m. | #3
* Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@linaro.org> wrote:

> On Thu, 22 Jun 2017, Ingo Molnar wrote:

> 

> > 

> > * Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@linaro.org> wrote:

> > 

> > > On Wed, 21 Jun 2017, Ingo Molnar wrote:

> > > 

> > > > I've applied the first patch to the scheduler tree yesterday, but the other

> > > > changes unfortunately conflicted with other pending scheduler work - could

> > > > you please re-post the other 3 patches on top of tip:sched/core?

> > > 

> > > Sure, here they are.

> > 

> > Hm, what tree is this against? First patch won't apply to the latest 

> > tip:sched/core:

> > 

> >  patching file kernel/sched/core.c

> >  Hunk #7 succeeded at 5253 (offset -2 lines).

> >  Hunk #8 FAILED at 5285.

> >  Hunk #9 succeeded at 5581 (offset 1 line).

> >  Hunk #10 succeeded at 6485 (offset 1 line).

> >  1 out of 10 hunks FAILED -- rejects in file kernel/sched/core.c

> 

> That's against my copy of tip/sched/core as of yesterday:

> 

> commit f11cc0760b8397e0d230122606421b6a96e9f869

> Author:     Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>

> AuthorDate: Wed Jun 14 19:37:30 2017 -0700

> Commit:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>

> CommitDate: Tue Jun 20 12:48:37 2017 +0200

> 

>     sched/core: Drop the unused try_get_task_struct() helper function

> 

> on which I pre-applied my previous patch #1/4 ("cpuset/sched: cpuset 

> makes sense for SMP only") you said having already applied on your side 

> but that didn't show up in the publicly visible sched/core yet.


I see where the mismatch comes from - I applied this one from your earlier 
patches:

  f5832c1998af: sched/core: Omit building stop_sched_class when !SMP

... thus #1/4 was missing from my stack of patches. I'll apply that too and 
re-try, no need to resend.

Thanks,

	Ingo
Nicolas Pitre June 22, 2017, 5:19 p.m. | #4
On Thu, 22 Jun 2017, Ingo Molnar wrote:

> * Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@linaro.org> wrote:

> 

> > That's against my copy of tip/sched/core as of yesterday:

> > 

> > commit f11cc0760b8397e0d230122606421b6a96e9f869

> > Author:     Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>

> > AuthorDate: Wed Jun 14 19:37:30 2017 -0700

> > Commit:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>

> > CommitDate: Tue Jun 20 12:48:37 2017 +0200

> > 

> >     sched/core: Drop the unused try_get_task_struct() helper function

> > 

> > on which I pre-applied my previous patch #1/4 ("cpuset/sched: cpuset 

> > makes sense for SMP only") you said having already applied on your side 

> > but that didn't show up in the publicly visible sched/core yet.

> 

> I see where the mismatch comes from - I applied this one from your earlier 

> patches:

> 

>   f5832c1998af: sched/core: Omit building stop_sched_class when !SMP

> 

> ... thus #1/4 was missing from my stack of patches. I'll apply that too and 

> re-try, no need to resend.


OK. Let me know if you still have difficulties.


Nicolas