On 9/27/2018 11:58 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 10:39:01PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: >> On Fri, 21 Sep 2018, Reinette Chatre wrote: >> >>> Dear Maintainers, >> >> Sorry for replying late. >> >>> On 9/20/2018 7:11 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: >>>> On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 10:29:05AM -0700, Reinette Chatre wrote: >>>>> Reinette Chatre (6): >>>>> perf/core: Add sanity check to deal with pinned event failure >>>>> perf/x86: Add helper to obtain performance counter index >>>>> x86/intel_rdt: Remove local register variables >>>>> x86/intel_rdt: Create required perf event attributes >>>>> x86/intel_rdt: Use perf infrastructure for measurements >>>>> x86/intel_rdt: Re-enable pseudo-lock measurements >>>>> >>>>> Documentation/x86/intel_rdt_ui.txt | 22 +- >>>>> arch/x86/events/core.c | 21 ++ >>>>> arch/x86/include/asm/perf_event.h | 1 + >>>>> arch/x86/kernel/cpu/intel_rdt_pseudo_lock.c | 372 ++++++++++++-------- >>>>> kernel/events/core.c | 6 + >>>>> 5 files changed, 261 insertions(+), 161 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> Yeah, these look good, thanks! >>>> >>>> Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <[email protected]> >>>> >>> >>> Could you please consider this series for inclusion into v4.19? >> >> So in principle I'm having no objections as this really is mostly a RDT >> only issue. >> >> Peter, any objections against the Perf part of it, aside the core patch >> which is an obvious fix? > > Nope, look up a few lines to observe my Ack ;-) >
I interpreted Thomas and Peter's responses to mean that there are no objections for this to be included in v4.19 as a fix. If I understand the tip branches correctly the core patch seems to be headed to v4.19 while the rest (excluding the final patch "x86/intel_rdt: Re-enable pseudo-lock measurements") are headed to v4.20. Have you decided against including this into v4.19 or did I misunderstand the responses and/or branches? Thank you for helping me to sort this out Reinette
