From: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: lkp@lists.01.org
Subject: Re: [locking/mutexes] cb4bbc457b: -40.0% unixbench.score
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2016 22:05:11 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160125060511.GE4503@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87io2iih8w.fsf@yhuang-dev.intel.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1122 bytes --]
On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 09:23:59AM +0800, Huang, Ying wrote:
> Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net> writes:
>
> > On Fri, 22 Jan 2016, kernel test robot wrote:
> >
> >>FYI, we noticed the below changes on
> >>
> >>https://github.com/0day-ci/linux
> >> Ding-Tianhong/locking-mutexes-don-t-spin-on-owner-when-wait-list-is-not-NULL/20160121-173317
> >>commit cb4bbc457bfed6194ffab1b10c7be73b3f16ca2d ("locking/mutexes: don't spin on owner when wait list is not NULL.")
> >
> > I'm not sure why this would even be reported, as this patch has not been accepted
> > or acked or nothin', by anyone.
>
> Sorry for bothering. The purpose is FYI as in the original report
> email. We test patches posted to LKML, if we found some changes related
> to the patch, we will send out a report. Hope the reviewer could
> take that as information for his/her review if the report isn't totally
> nonsense.
For me, the 0day reports on LKML postings have been quite helpful. They
give the submitter immediate feedback on a number of issues, thus reducing
the number of rounds of review.
Thanx, Paul
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@intel.com>
Cc: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>,
Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@hp.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
lkp@01.org, Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Ding Tianhong <dingtianhong@huawei.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
fengguang.wu@intel.com, Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>,
Jason Low <jason.low2@hp.com>
Subject: Re: [LKP] [lkp] [locking/mutexes] cb4bbc457b: -40.0% unixbench.score
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2016 22:05:11 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160125060511.GE4503@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87io2iih8w.fsf@yhuang-dev.intel.com>
On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 09:23:59AM +0800, Huang, Ying wrote:
> Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net> writes:
>
> > On Fri, 22 Jan 2016, kernel test robot wrote:
> >
> >>FYI, we noticed the below changes on
> >>
> >>https://github.com/0day-ci/linux
> >> Ding-Tianhong/locking-mutexes-don-t-spin-on-owner-when-wait-list-is-not-NULL/20160121-173317
> >>commit cb4bbc457bfed6194ffab1b10c7be73b3f16ca2d ("locking/mutexes: don't spin on owner when wait list is not NULL.")
> >
> > I'm not sure why this would even be reported, as this patch has not been accepted
> > or acked or nothin', by anyone.
>
> Sorry for bothering. The purpose is FYI as in the original report
> email. We test patches posted to LKML, if we found some changes related
> to the patch, we will send out a report. Hope the reviewer could
> take that as information for his/her review if the report isn't totally
> nonsense.
For me, the 0day reports on LKML postings have been quite helpful. They
give the submitter immediate feedback on a number of issues, thus reducing
the number of rounds of review.
Thanx, Paul
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-01-25 6:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-01-22 2:27 [locking/mutexes] cb4bbc457b: -40.0% unixbench.score kernel test robot
2016-01-22 2:48 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2016-01-22 2:48 ` [lkp] " Davidlohr Bueso
2016-01-25 1:23 ` Huang, Ying
2016-01-25 1:23 ` [LKP] [lkp] " Huang, Ying
2016-01-25 6:05 ` Paul E. McKenney [this message]
2016-01-25 6:05 ` Paul E. McKenney
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=20160125060511.GE4503@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--to=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=lkp@lists.01.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.