linux-kernel - Re: RFC: revert request for cpuidle patches e11538d1 and 69a37bea

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 26 Jul 2013 14:29:40 -0400
From:	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
To:	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>
CC:	Jeremy Eder <jeder@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com, youquan.song@...el.com,
	paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, daniel.lezcano@...aro.org,
	len.brown@...el.com
Subject: Re: RFC:  revert request for cpuidle patches e11538d1 and 69a37bea

On 07/26/2013 02:27 PM, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> On 7/26/2013 11:13 AM, Rik van Riel wrote:
>
>>
>> Could you try running the tests with just the repeat mode
>> stuff from commit 69a37bea excluded, but leaving the common
>> infrastructure and commit e11538?
>>
>
> personally I think we should go the other way around.
> revert the set entirely first, and now, and get our performance back
> to what it should be
>
> and then see what we can add back without causing the regressions.
> this may take longer, or be done in steps, and that's ok.
>
> the end point may well be the same... but we can then evaluate in the right
> direction.

Works for me. I have no objection to reverting both patches,
if the people planning to fix the code prefer that :)

-- 
All rights reversed
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/