On 12/04/2016 16:13, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > 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. I agree. FWIW the behavior after the patch is consistent with what actual hardware does. The old behavior was _documented_ to be consistent with actual hardware, but instead it was crazy. Paolo -- 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