[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20070723231015.34b22dcb.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 23:10:15 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: "Ray Lee" <ray-lk@...rabbit.org>
Cc: "Nick Piggin" <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>,
"Jesper Juhl" <jesper.juhl@...il.com>,
"ck list" <ck@....kolivas.org>, "Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...e.hu>,
"Paul Jackson" <pj@....com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23
On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 23:01:41 -0700 "Ray Lee" <ray-lk@...rabbit.org> wrote:
> So, what do I measure to make this an objective problem report?
Ideal would be to find a reproducible-by-others testcase which does what you
believe to be the wrong thing.
> And if
> I do that (and it shows a positive result), will that be good enough
> to argue for inclusion?
That depends upon whether there are more suitable ways of fixing "the
wrong thing".
There may not be - it could well be that present behaviour
is correct for the testcase, but it leaves the system in the wrong
state for your large workload shift. In that case, prefetching (ie:
restoring system state approximately to that which prevailed prior to
"testcase") might well be a suitable fix.
-
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists