[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110513084253.GE13647@elte.hu>
Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 10:42:53 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>
Cc: paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL rcu/next] rcu commits for 2.6.40
* Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org> wrote:
> more info:
> if only reverting: e59fb3120becfb36b22ddb8bd27d065d3cdca499
>
> when compiled with gcc from opensuse 11.3
> [ 32.579585] cpu_dev_init done
> [ 81.203193] memory_dev_init done
>
> but when compile that with gcc from fedora 14, then will less delay.
> [ 32.404140] cpu_dev_init done
> [ 37.602986] memory_dev_init done
>
> gcc version on opensuse 11.3
> gcc (SUSE Linux) 4.5.0 20100604 [gcc-4_5-branch revision 160292]
>
> gcc version on fedora 14:
> gcc (GCC) 4.5.1 20100924 (Red Hat 4.5.1-4)
Would it be possible to narrow down it a bit which commit causes the boot
slowdown?
known bad : 11c476f31a0f: net,rcu: convert call_rcu(prl_entry_destroy_rcu) to kfree
known good: 0ee5623f9a6e: Linux 2.6.39-rc6
There's 76 commits inbetween so an about 6-step bisection ought to be able to
narrow the source of regression down quite a bit ...
The complication with that bisection will be the need to revert the other
broken commit you found:
e59fb3120bec: rcu: Decrease memory-barrier usage based on semi-formal proof
Which is unfortunately very early in the series, so you'd have to revert this
at almost every step of the bisection ...
Thanks,
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