On 2/20/24 00:28, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Mon, 19 Feb 2024 11:09:23 +0100 Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@xxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On 2/19/24 10:52, Marco Elver wrote: >>> On Mon, 19 Feb 2024 at 10:48, Mikhail Gavrilov >>> <mikhail.v.gavrilov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> >>>> On Sat, Feb 3, 2024 at 1:14 AM Mikhail Gavrilov >>>> <mikhail.v.gavrilov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> You are right. >>>>> Thanks for digging into it! >>>>> >>>> >>>> This [2] revert is still not merged at least I checked on 4f5e5092fdbf. >>>> Is there any plan to merge it or find another approach? >>>> >>>> [2] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240118110216.2539519-2-elver@xxxxxxxxxx/ >>> >>> I think it's already in -mm and -next. It just takes time, which is a >>> good thing, after all we want to let -next testing confirm nothing is >>> wrong with it. >>> >>> Andrew, is this planned for the next merge window or as a "hot fix" >>> for the current rc? Given it has the right "Fixes" tags it will make >>> it to stable kernels eventually, but I also think that the previous >>> "slow" version is almost unusable on big systems, so it may be >>> worthwhile considering the current rc. >> >> Yeah it would be best to fix in 6.8 to prevent regressions. >> > > I'm all confused. > > 4434a56ec209 ("stackdepot: make fast paths lock-less again") was > mainlined for v6.8-rc3. Uh sorry, I just trusted the info that it's not merged and didn't verify it myself. Yeah, I can see it is there. > That patch Fixed: 108be8def46e ("lib/stackdepot: allow users to evict > stack traces") which was mainlined for v6.8-rc1, so 4434a56ec209 did > not need a cc:stable? That's right.
