On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 03:30:23PM +0200, Radim Krčmář wrote: > 2016-04-11 18:21-0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman: > > On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 12:23:35AM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > > On Wed, 2016-03-02 at 22:56 +0100, Radim Krčmář wrote: > >> > Even though there is a chance of regressions, I think we can fix the > >> > LVT0 NMI bug without introducing a new tick policy. > >> [...] > >> > >> Given the 'chance of regressions', should we let this sit in mainline > >> longer before including it in stable updates? > > > > Hm, good point, Radim, what do you think, is this good to go to stable > > now? This has been in since 4.6-rc1, so it's been a few weeks with > > people running it already... > > I think it is good to go. No reasonable workload should regress and the > fixed use-case is common on old linux guest. > > This patch makes a difference if the guest doesn't EOI in PIT interrupts > before the next one arrives. PIT would have been unreliable in that > situation, so all worloads that that could regress have likely been > avoided. Changes to NMI injection would need even crazier guest to > regress. Ok, thanks, leaving it in. greg k-h -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe stable" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html