From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760397Ab3BMRlw (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Feb 2013 12:41:52 -0500 Received: from www.linutronix.de ([62.245.132.108]:60477 "EHLO Galois.linutronix.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1759980Ab3BMRlu (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Feb 2013 12:41:50 -0500 Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 18:41:48 +0100 (CET) From: Thomas Gleixner To: Steven Rostedt cc: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org, Carsten Emde Subject: Re: [PREEMPT RT] SLUB and split softirq lock for v3.2-rt In-Reply-To: <1360776274.23152.7.camel@gandalf.local.home> Message-ID: References: <1360771932-27150-1-git-send-email-bigeasy@linutronix.de> <1360776274.23152.7.camel@gandalf.local.home> User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (LFD 1266 2009-07-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Linutronix-Spam-Score: -1.0 X-Linutronix-Spam-Level: - X-Linutronix-Spam-Status: No , -1.0 points, 5.0 required, ALL_TRUSTED=-1,SHORTCIRCUIT=-0.0001 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 13 Feb 2013, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Wed, 2013-02-13 at 17:11 +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > > 3.2-rt is a long term supported kernel, which lacks two RT features > > from 3.6: SLUB support and the split softirq lock implementation. > > > > SLUB has a way better performance than SLAB on RT and the split > > softirq lock implementation is necessary especially for realtime > > networking applications. > > > > The following patch series backports these features to 3.2-rt. > > > > Steven, could you please apply these patches to a separate > > 3.2-rt-features branch? > > Is it possible to separate these two features into two different patch > sets. I would like to apply the softirq changes first, and then apply > the slub changes. > > Although it looks as though the first half is softirq only 1-8, and the > second half is slub related 9-16. If that's the case, I'll just pull in > 1-8 first, play with them, and then do 9-16. That's correct.