[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <7bda8e6a-2179-b431-973b-d074cd8d93db@linux.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 27 May 2021 17:58:53 -0700
From: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
To: paulmck@...nel.org, Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc: Feng Tang <feng.tang@...el.com>,
kernel test robot <oliver.sang@...el.com>,
John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Mark Rutland <Mark.Rutland@....com>,
Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
Xing Zhengjun <zhengjun.xing@...ux.intel.com>,
Chris Mason <clm@...com>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
lkp@...ts.01.org, lkp@...el.com, ying.huang@...el.com,
zhengjun.xing@...el.com
Subject: Re: [clocksource] 8901ecc231: stress-ng.lockbus.ops_per_sec -9.5%
regression
> Only those cloud provides making heavy use of the aforementioned "poorly
> designed" hardware, correct?
If any such hardware is deployed in non homeopathic quantities, we
probably need to support it out of the box. So far I'm not seeing any
evidence that it does not.
That would argue for including the patch in the patch series.
Especially since stress-ng is somewhat popular for system testing.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists