From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932200AbZFKAzJ (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Jun 2009 20:55:09 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1757597AbZFKAy4 (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Jun 2009 20:54:56 -0400 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:44891 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755951AbZFKAyz (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Jun 2009 20:54:55 -0400 Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 02:54:11 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Pekka Enberg Cc: Linus Torvalds , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, cl@linux-foundation.org, hannes@cmpxchg.org, mpm@selenic.com, npiggin@suse.de, yinghai@kernel.org Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Early boot SLAB for 2.6.31 Message-ID: <20090611005411.GB24065@elte.hu> References: <4A3017D1.5010708@cs.helsinki.fi> <20090610204318.GA8147@elte.hu> <84144f020906101347y3e250f4bme2d1c60dd5993ffc@mail.gmail.com> <20090610205026.GC8147@elte.hu> <20090610205749.GA9321@elte.hu> <4A302075.7060501@cs.helsinki.fi> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4A302075.7060501@cs.helsinki.fi> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) 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=3.2.5 -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 * Pekka Enberg wrote: > Hi Ingo, > > Ingo Molnar wrote: >>>>> What kind of conflicts are there against -tip? The diffstat >>>>> suggests it's mostly in-SLAB code, right? There shouldnt be much >>>>> to conflict, except kmemcheck - which has more or less trivial >>>>> callbacks there. >>>> The conflicting bits are the patches that remove bootmem allocator >>>> uses in arch/x86 and kernel/sched.c. >>> Give me an hour and i'll get some minimal testing done. >> >> This tree doesnt conflict (not even with kmecheck) - and the older >> bits you sent against the scheduler and against x86 doesnt apply >> anymore - but they do look scary. > > Btw, yeah, it doesn't conflict because I dropped the problematic patches > and did the bootmem fallback instead. > > But now you know why I tried to push all this to -tip. Your tree > is moving so fast that it's difficult to generate patches that > apply to both, -tip and mainline, in this particular area :-). Hey, i'd agree normally, but the scheduler tree was very quiet in this cycle, for a change :-) The main "problem" here really is the multi-tree impact of such broad changes. Those are best kept in a tree like -mm, which goes on top of all other trees and is thus basically the only tree that can do tree-wide changes. Anyway, if you rebase to latest -git it should be fine - Linus pulled the scheduler and x86 bits. Ingo