linux-kernel - Re: RFC: revert request for cpuidle patches e11538d1 and 69a37bea

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <51F2BF8C.7010308@linux.intel.com>
Date:	Fri, 26 Jul 2013 11:27:24 -0700
From:	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>
To:	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
CC:	Jeremy Eder <jeder@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com, youquan.song@...el.com,
	paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, daniel.lezcano@...aro.org,
	len.brown@...el.com
Subject: Re: RFC:  revert request for cpuidle patches e11538d1 and 69a37bea

On 7/26/2013 11:13 AM, Rik van Riel wrote:

>
> Could you try running the tests with just the repeat mode
> stuff from commit 69a37bea excluded, but leaving the common
> infrastructure and commit e11538?
>

personally I think we should go the other way around.
revert the set entirely first, and now, and get our performance back
to what it should be

and then see what we can add back without causing the regressions.
this may take longer, or be done in steps, and that's ok.

the end point may well be the same... but we can then evaluate in the right
direction.
--
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/