Re: [PATCH 0/3] some scheduler code movements

2017-06-22 Thread Nicolas Pitre 
On Thu, 22 Jun 2017, Ingo Molnar wrote:

> * Nicolas Pitre  wrote:
> 
> > That's against my copy of tip/sched/core as of yesterday:
> > 
> > commit f11cc0760b8397e0d230122606421b6a96e9f869
> > Author: Davidlohr Bueso 
> > AuthorDate: Wed Jun 14 19:37:30 2017 -0700
> > Commit: Ingo Molnar 
> > 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

Re: [PATCH 0/3] some scheduler code movements

2017-06-22 Thread Nicolas Pitre 
On Thu, 22 Jun 2017, Ingo Molnar wrote:

> * Nicolas Pitre  wrote:
> 
> > That's against my copy of tip/sched/core as of yesterday:
> > 
> > commit f11cc0760b8397e0d230122606421b6a96e9f869
> > Author: Davidlohr Bueso 
> > AuthorDate: Wed Jun 14 19:37:30 2017 -0700
> > Commit: Ingo Molnar 
> > 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

Re: [PATCH 0/3] some scheduler code movements

2017-06-22 Thread Ingo Molnar 

* Nicolas Pitre  wrote:

> On Thu, 22 Jun 2017, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> > 
> > * Nicolas Pitre  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 
> AuthorDate: Wed Jun 14 19:37:30 2017 -0700
> Commit: Ingo Molnar 
> 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

Re: [PATCH 0/3] some scheduler code movements

2017-06-22 Thread Ingo Molnar 

* Nicolas Pitre  wrote:

> On Thu, 22 Jun 2017, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> > 
> > * Nicolas Pitre  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 
> AuthorDate: Wed Jun 14 19:37:30 2017 -0700
> Commit: Ingo Molnar 
> 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

Re: [PATCH 0/3] some scheduler code movements

2017-06-22 Thread Nicolas Pitre 
On Thu, 22 Jun 2017, Ingo Molnar wrote:

> 
> * Nicolas Pitre  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 
AuthorDate: Wed Jun 14 19:37:30 2017 -0700
Commit: Ingo Molnar 
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

Re: [PATCH 0/3] some scheduler code movements

2017-06-22 Thread Nicolas Pitre 
On Thu, 22 Jun 2017, Ingo Molnar wrote:

> 
> * Nicolas Pitre  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 
AuthorDate: Wed Jun 14 19:37:30 2017 -0700
Commit: Ingo Molnar 
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

Re: [PATCH 0/3] some scheduler code movements

2017-06-22 Thread Ingo Molnar 

* Nicolas Pitre  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

Re: [PATCH 0/3] some scheduler code movements

2017-06-22 Thread Ingo Molnar 

* Nicolas Pitre  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

[PATCH 0/3] some scheduler code movements

2017-06-21 Thread Nicolas Pitre 
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.

[PATCH 0/3] some scheduler code movements

2017-06-21 Thread Nicolas Pitre 
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.