lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Jul]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC 00/15] x86_64: Optimize percpu accesses
Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Mike Travis <travis@sgi.com> wrote:
>
>>> This fragility makes me very nervous. It seems hard enough to get
>>> this stuff working with current tools; making it work over the whole
>>> range of supported tools looks like its going to be hard.
>> (me too ;-)
>>
>> Once I get a solid version working with (at least) gcc-4.2.4, then
>> regression testing with older tools will be easier, or at least a
>> table of results can be produced.
>
> the problem is, we cannot just put it even into tip/master if there's no
> short-term hope of fixing a problem it triggers. gcc-4.2.3 is solid for
> me otherwise, for series of thousands of randomly built kernels.

Great, I'll request we load gcc-4.2.3 on our devel server.

>
> can we just leave out the zero-based percpu stuff safely and could i
> test the rest of your series - or are there dependencies? I think
> zero-based percpu, while nice in theory, is probably just a very small
> positive effect so it's not a life or death issue. (or is there any
> deeper, semantic reason why we'd want it?)

I sort of assumed that zero-based would not make it into 2.6.26-rcX,
and no, reaching 4096 cpus does not require it. The other patches
I've been submitting are more general and will fix possible panics
(like stack overflows, etc.)

Thanks,
Mike


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-07-09 23:07    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site