[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200710292056.01086.ak@suse.de>
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 20:56:00 +0100
From: Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>
To: Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>
Cc: Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Martin Ebourne <fedora@...urne.me.uk>,
Zou Nan hai <nanhai.zou@...el.com>,
Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>, stable@...nel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: 2.6.23 boot failures on x86-64.
On Monday 29 October 2007 20:43:11 Dave Jones wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 29, 2007 at 08:03:09PM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
>
> > > > It's probably the usual "nobody tests sparsemem at all" issue.
> > >
> > > We've been using SPARSEMEM in Fedora for a *long* time.
> > > So long in fact, I forget why we moved away from DISCONTIGMEM, so there's
> > > a significant number of users using that configuration for some time.
> >
> > Supposedly you wanted a slower kernel that needs more memory?
> >
> > Ok I wasn't aware of that. I tended to get sparsemem reports usually
> > at least 1-2 releases after the fact, so it looked like it was undertested.
>
> Looking at cvs history, I can't figure out what the reasoning was,
> but every Fedora (and RHEL5) kernel since 2006/07/05 has been that way.
>
> Curious how no-one noticed either of the side-effects you mention.
It's a few percent on a few benchmarks iirc. vmemmap (now in .24) was supposed
to address that.
-Andi
-
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