From: Hugh Dickins <hugh@veritas.com>
To: Lee Revell <rlrevell@joe-job.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: More latency regressions with 2.6.11-rc4-RT-V0.7.39-02
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 04:56:51 +0000 (GMT) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0502240441260.5427@goblin.wat.veritas.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1109196824.4009.1.camel@krustophenia.net>
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005, Lee Revell wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-02-23 at 20:53 +0000, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > On Wed, 23 Feb 2005, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > > Please replace by new patch below, which I'm now running through lmbench.
> >
> > That second patch seems fine, and I see no lmbench regression from it.
>
> Should go into 2.6.11, right?
That's up to Andrew (and Linus).
I was thinking that way when I rushed you the patch. But given that
you have remaining unresolved latency issues nearby (zap_pte_range,
clear_page_range), and given the warning shot that I screwed up my
first attempt, I'd be inclined to say hold off.
It's a pity: for a while we were thinking 2.6.11 would be a big step
forward for mainline latency; but it now looks to me like these tests
have come too late in the cycle to be dealt with safely.
In other mail, you do expect people still to be using Ingo's patches,
so probably this patch should stick there (and in -mm) for now.
Hugh
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-02-24 5:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-02-23 18:07 Lee Revell
2005-02-23 19:16 ` Hugh Dickins
2005-02-23 19:36 ` Lee Revell
2005-02-23 20:06 ` Hugh Dickins
2005-02-23 20:10 ` Lee Revell
2005-02-23 20:30 ` Lee Revell
2005-02-23 21:03 ` Hugh Dickins
2005-02-23 22:14 ` Lee Revell
2005-02-23 23:52 ` PPC RT Patch john cooper
2005-02-24 4:20 ` Frank Rowand
2005-02-24 13:56 ` john cooper
2005-02-23 23:27 ` More latency regressions with 2.6.11-rc4-RT-V0.7.39-02 Nick Piggin
2005-02-24 1:03 ` Lee Revell
2005-02-24 1:29 ` Nick Piggin
2005-02-24 2:24 ` Lee Revell
2005-02-24 2:41 ` Nick Piggin
2005-02-24 3:03 ` Lee Revell
2005-02-23 20:53 ` Hugh Dickins
2005-02-23 22:13 ` Lee Revell
2005-02-24 4:56 ` Hugh Dickins [this message]
2005-02-24 6:32 ` Lee Revell
2005-02-24 8:26 ` Hugh Dickins
2005-02-25 3:30 ` Lee Revell
2005-02-25 5:58 ` Hugh Dickins
2005-02-25 15:02 ` Lee Revell
2005-02-23 19:52 ` Lee Revell
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=Pine.LNX.4.61.0502240441260.5427@goblin.wat.veritas.com \
--to=hugh@veritas.com \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au \
--cc=rlrevell@joe-job.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®