Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Fri, 18 Sep 2009 00:05:42 -0700 | | From | Andrew Morton <> | | Subject | Re: aim7 scalability issue on 4 socket machine |
| |
On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 07:53:58 +0100 (BST) Hugh Dickins <hugh.dickins@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Sep 2009, Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 10:02:19 +0800 "Zhang, Yanmin" <yanmin_zhang@linux.intel.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > So, Yanmin, please retest with http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/9/13/25 > > > > and let us know if that works as well for you - thanks. > > > I tested Lee's patch and it does fix the issue. > > Thanks for checking and reporting back, Yanmin. > > > > > Do we think we should cook up something for -stable? > > Gosh, I laughed at Lee (sorry!) for suggesting it for -stable: > is stable really for getting a better number out of a benchmark? > > I'd have thought the next release is the right place for that; but > I've no problem if you guys and the stable guys agree it's appropriate. > > > > > Either this is a regression or the workload is particularly obscure. > > I've not cross-checked descriptions, but assume Lee was actually > testing on exactly the same kind of upcoming Nehalem as Yanmin, and > that machine happens to have characteristics which show up badly here. > > > > > aim7 is sufficiently non-obscure to make me wonder what's happened here? > > Not a regression, just the onward march of new hardware, I think. > Could easily be other such things in other places with other tests. >
Well, it comes down to the question "what is -stable for".
If you take it as "bugfixed version of the 2.6.x kernel" then no, speedups aren't appropriate.
If you consider -stable to be "something distros, etc will use" then yes, perhaps we serve those consumers better by including fairly major efficiency improvements.
I suspect most consumers of -stable would prefer the latter approach, as long as we don't go nuts.
|  |