![]() | |||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Thu, 12 Jan 2006 01:26 pm, Martin Bligh wrote: > Peter Williams wrote: > > Con Kolivas wrote: > >> On Thu, 12 Jan 2006 12:29 pm, Peter Williams wrote: > >>> Con Kolivas wrote: > >>>> This is a shot in the dark. We haven't confirmed 1. there is a > >>>> problem 2. > >>>> that this is the problem nor 3. that this patch will fix the problem. > >>> > >>> I disagree. I think that there is a clear mistake in my original patch > >>> that this patch fixes. > >> > >> I agree with you on that. The real concern is that we were just about > >> to push it upstream. So where does this leave us? I propose we delay > >> merging the > >> "improved smp nice handling" patch into mainline pending your further > >> changes. > > > > I think that they're already in 2.6.15 minus my "move load not tasks" > > modification which I was expecting to go into 2.6.16. Is that what you > > meant? > > > > If so I think this is a small and obvious fix that shouldn't delay the > > merging of "move load not tasks" into the mainline. But it's not my > > call. > > BTW, in reference to a question from last night ... -git7 seems fine. So > if you merged it already, it wasn't that ;-) Thanks and looks like the results are in from 2.6.14-rc2-mm1 with the patch backed out. Drumroll.... http://test.kernel.org/perf/kernbench.moe.png The performance goes back to a range similar to 2.6.14-rc1-mm1 (see 2.6.14-rc2-mm1 + 20328 in blue). Unfortunately this does implicate this patch. Can we put it back into -mm only and allow Peter's tweaks/fixes to go on top and have it tested some more before going upstream? Peter, Ingo? Cheers, Con - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||
| Last update: 2006-01-12 07:41 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||