From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
mahesh@linux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Anton Blanchard <anton@samba.org>,
linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [regression] 3.0-rc boot failure -- bisected to cd4ea6ae3982
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 18:42:02 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110720164202.GA24244@elte.hu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+55aFxpH9-4rkH6CRXbjFCQMGNYGRMKgdgHUEthefQPumFKVg@mail.gmail.com>
* Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 7:58 AM, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> wrote:
> >
> > Right, so we can either merge my scary patches now and have 3.0
> > boot on 16+ node machines (and risk breaking something), or delay
> > them until 3.0.1 and have 16+ node machines suffer a little.
>
> So how much impact does your scary patch have on machines that
> don't have multiple nodes? If it's a "the code isn't even called by
> normal machines" kind of setup, I don't think I care a lot.
NUMA systems will trigger the new code - not just 'weird NUMA
systems' - but i still think we could try the patches, the code looks
straightforward and i booted them on NUMA systems and it all seems
fine so far.
Anyway, i'll push the new sched/urgent branch out in a few minutes
and then you'll see the full patches in the commit notifications.
Thanks,
Ingo
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
Anton Blanchard <anton@samba.org>,
mahesh@linux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, benh@kernel.crashing.org
Subject: Re: [regression] 3.0-rc boot failure -- bisected to cd4ea6ae3982
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 18:42:02 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110720164202.GA24244@elte.hu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+55aFxpH9-4rkH6CRXbjFCQMGNYGRMKgdgHUEthefQPumFKVg@mail.gmail.com>
* Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 7:58 AM, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> wrote:
> >
> > Right, so we can either merge my scary patches now and have 3.0
> > boot on 16+ node machines (and risk breaking something), or delay
> > them until 3.0.1 and have 16+ node machines suffer a little.
>
> So how much impact does your scary patch have on machines that
> don't have multiple nodes? If it's a "the code isn't even called by
> normal machines" kind of setup, I don't think I care a lot.
NUMA systems will trigger the new code - not just 'weird NUMA
systems' - but i still think we could try the patches, the code looks
straightforward and i booted them on NUMA systems and it all seems
fine so far.
Anyway, i'll push the new sched/urgent branch out in a few minutes
and then you'll see the full patches in the commit notifications.
Thanks,
Ingo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-07-20 16:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 43+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-07-07 10:22 [regression] 3.0-rc boot failure -- bisected to cd4ea6ae3982 Mahesh J Salgaonkar
2011-07-07 10:22 ` Mahesh J Salgaonkar
2011-07-07 10:59 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-07-07 10:59 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-07-07 11:55 ` Mahesh J Salgaonkar
2011-07-07 11:55 ` Mahesh J Salgaonkar
2011-07-07 12:28 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-07-07 12:28 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-07-14 0:34 ` Anton Blanchard
2011-07-14 0:34 ` Anton Blanchard
2011-07-14 4:35 ` Anton Blanchard
2011-07-14 4:35 ` Anton Blanchard
2011-07-14 13:16 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-07-14 13:16 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-07-15 0:45 ` Anton Blanchard
2011-07-15 0:45 ` Anton Blanchard
2011-07-15 8:37 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-07-15 8:37 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-07-18 21:35 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-07-18 21:35 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-07-19 4:44 ` Anton Blanchard
2011-07-19 4:44 ` Anton Blanchard
2011-07-19 10:21 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-07-19 10:21 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-07-20 2:03 ` Anton Blanchard
2011-07-20 2:03 ` Anton Blanchard
2011-07-20 10:14 ` Anton Blanchard
2011-07-20 10:14 ` Anton Blanchard
2011-07-20 10:45 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-07-20 10:45 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-07-20 12:14 ` Anton Blanchard
2011-07-20 12:14 ` Anton Blanchard
2011-07-20 14:40 ` Linus Torvalds
2011-07-20 14:40 ` Linus Torvalds
2011-07-20 14:58 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-07-20 14:58 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-07-20 16:04 ` Linus Torvalds
2011-07-20 16:04 ` Linus Torvalds
2011-07-20 16:42 ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2011-07-20 16:42 ` Ingo Molnar
2011-07-20 16:42 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-07-20 16:42 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-07-20 17:29 ` [tip:sched/urgent] sched: Avoid creating superfluous NUMA domains on non-NUMA systems tip-bot for Peter Zijlstra
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20110720164202.GA24244@elte.hu \
--to=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=anton@samba.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=mahesh@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.