From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753504AbYHKNO1 (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Aug 2008 09:14:27 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752883AbYHKNON (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Aug 2008 09:14:13 -0400 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:40090 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752229AbYHKNOM (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Aug 2008 09:14:12 -0400 Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 15:14:00 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Gregory Haskins Cc: Mike Galbraith , LKML , Peter Zijlstra Subject: Re: [revert] mysql+oltp regression Message-ID: <20080811131400.GA909@elte.hu> References: <1218454322.25098.24.camel@marge.simson.net> <20080811114324.GA23529@elte.hu> <48A03049.202@novell.com> <20080811124857.GD10082@elte.hu> <48A038A6.4010104@novell.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <48A038A6.4010104@novell.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.3 -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Gregory Haskins wrote: >>> Speaking of this: Another patch I submitted to you Ingo (had to do >>> with updating the load_weight inside task_setprio) seems to also >>> have this phenomenon: e.g. its technically correct but further >>> testing has revealed negative repercussions elsewhere. So please >>> ignore that patch (or revert if you already pulled in, but I don't >>> think you have). Ill try to look into this issue as well. >> >> ok, under which thread/subject is that? Not queued in tip/sched/* >> yet, correct? >> > Here is the original thread: > > http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/7/3/416 > > I do not believe you have queued it anywhere (public anyway) yet. > > Note I have already invalidated 1/2, and now I am retracting 2/2 as > well. (1/2 is actually a bogus patch, 2/2 is "technically correct" > but causes ripples in the load balancer that need to be sorted out > first. ok, thanks. I'm curious, what are those ripple effects? Stability or performance? Ingo