[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080709193404.GC4804@elte.hu>
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2008 21:34:04 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Mike Travis <travis@....com>
Cc: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jack Steiner <steiner@....com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 00/15] x86_64: Optimize percpu accesses
* Mike Travis <travis@....com> wrote:
> > This fragility makes me very nervous. It seems hard enough to get
> > this stuff working with current tools; making it work over the whole
> > range of supported tools looks like its going to be hard.
>
> (me too ;-)
>
> Once I get a solid version working with (at least) gcc-4.2.4, then
> regression testing with older tools will be easier, or at least a
> table of results can be produced.
the problem is, we cannot just put it even into tip/master if there's no
short-term hope of fixing a problem it triggers. gcc-4.2.3 is solid for
me otherwise, for series of thousands of randomly built kernels.
can we just leave out the zero-based percpu stuff safely and could i
test the rest of your series - or are there dependencies? I think
zero-based percpu, while nice in theory, is probably just a very small
positive effect so it's not a life or death issue. (or is there any
deeper, semantic reason why we'd want it?)
Ingo
--
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