From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932759AbYD2OW6 (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Apr 2008 10:22:58 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1765857AbYD2OVF (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Apr 2008 10:21:05 -0400 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:35313 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1765845AbYD2OVD (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Apr 2008 10:21:03 -0400 Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 16:20:39 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: David Miller Cc: tglx@linutronix.de, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, harvey.harrison@gmail.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] bitops: remove "optimizations" Message-ID: <20080429142039.GD26461@elte.hu> References: <20080429.030332.88897602.davem@davemloft.net> <20080429.053412.15412725.davem@davemloft.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080429.053412.15412725.davem@davemloft.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.3 -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * David Miller wrote: > From: David Miller > Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 03:03:32 -0700 (PDT) > > > From: Thomas Gleixner > > Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 12:01:02 +0200 (CEST) > > > > > Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner > > > > Acked-by: David S. Miller > > Ironically, I just bisected sparc64 bootup failures to the following > changeset. It's very late here, and I haven't looked into the > details, but it seems to wedge in free_area_init_nodes() on a non-NUMA > system with CONFIG_NUMA disabled. hm. I guess the next thing you plan to check is whether Thomas's patch fixes it? > Isn't it funny that this optimization not only was useless, but also > broke things. :-/ yeah and sorry :-/ It would still be nice to understand why this happened, it looks like a weird (and unexpected) interaction. Ingo