[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200901191957.57703.nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2009 19:57:56 +1100
From: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
To: "Pekka Enberg" <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
Cc: "Matthew Wilcox" <matthew@....cx>,
"Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Wilcox, Matthew R" <matthew.r.wilcox@...el.com>,
chinang.ma@...el.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
sharad.c.tripathi@...el.com, arjan@...ux.intel.com,
andi.kleen@...el.com, suresh.b.siddha@...el.com,
harita.chilukuri@...el.com, douglas.w.styner@...el.com,
peter.xihong.wang@...el.com, hubert.nueckel@...el.com,
chris.mason@...cle.com, srostedt@...hat.com,
linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
"Andrew Vasquez" <andrew.vasquez@...gic.com>,
"Anirban Chakraborty" <anirban.chakraborty@...gic.com>,
"Christoph Lameter" <cl@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: Mainline kernel OLTP performance update
On Monday 19 January 2009 19:47:24 Pekka Enberg wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 10:42 AM, Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
wrote:
> > Anyway, nobody has disagreed with my proposal to merge SLQB, so in the
> > worst case I don't think it will cause too much harm, and in the best
> > case it might turn out to make the best tradeoffs and who knows, it
> > might actually not be catastrophic for HPC ;)
>
> Yeah. If Andrew/Linus doesn't want to merge SLQB to 2.6.29, we can
I would prefer not. Apart from not practicing what I preach about
merging, if it has stupid bugs on some systems or obvious performance
problems, it will not be a good start ;)
> stick it in linux-next through slab.git if you want.
That would be appreciated. It's not quite ready yet...
Thanks.
Nick
--
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