lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Dec]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: aim7 scalability issue on 4 socket machine
On Fri 2009-09-18 00:05:42, Andrew Morton wrote:
> 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.

Well, if speedups are ok, then someone should update stable_rules
file...?

...because I do not think it should be accepted based on that.

Pavel
It currently says:
-------------------


Rules on what kind of patches are accepted, and which ones are not,
into the
"-stable" tree:

- It must be obviously correct and tested.
- It cannot be bigger than 100 lines, with context.
- It must fix only one thing.
- It must fix a real bug that bothers people (not a, "This could be a
problem..." type thing).
- It must fix a problem that causes a build error (but not for things
marked CONFIG_BROKEN), an oops, a hang, data corruption, a real
security issue, or some "oh, that's not good" issue. In short,
something
critical.
- New device IDs and quirks are also accepted.
- No "theoretical race condition" issues, unless an explanation of
how the
race can be exploited is also provided.
- It cannot contain any "trivial" fixes in it (spelling changes,
whitespace cleanups, etc).
- It must follow the Documentation/SubmittingPatches rules.
- It or an equivalent fix must already exist in Linus' tree. Quote
the
respective commit ID in Linus' tree in your patch submission to
-stable.


--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-12-06 21:11    [W:0.082 / U:26.276 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site