From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1752042Ab1ARKaV (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Tue, 18 Jan 2011 05:30:21 -0500
Received: from casper.infradead.org ([85.118.1.10]:43632 "EHLO
	casper.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1751243Ab1ARKaT convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 18 Jan 2011 05:30:19 -0500
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/21] mm: Preemptibility -v6
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
To: Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
        David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>, Nick Piggin <npiggin@kernel.dk>,
        Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@kvack.org
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LSU.2.00.1101172301340.2899@sister.anvils>
References: <20101126143843.801484792@chello.nl>
	 <alpine.LSU.2.00.1101172301340.2899@sister.anvils>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2011 11:30:47 +0100
Message-ID: <1295346647.30950.477.camel@laptop>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.30.3 
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Mon, 2011-01-17 at 23:12 -0800, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> I understand you're intending to update your preemptible mmu_gather
> patchset against 2.6.38-rc1, so I've spent a while looking through
> (and running) your last posted version (plus its two fixes from BenH).
> 
> I've had no problems in running it, I can't tell if it's quicker or
> slower than the unpatched.  The only argument against the patchset,
> really, would be performance: and though there are no bad reports on
> it as yet, I do wonder how we proceed if a genuine workload shows up
> which is adversely affected.  Oh well, silly to worry about the
> hypothetical I suppose.
> 
Wow, _HUGE_ review, thanks! I'll slowly make my way through it when I do
the rebase against .38-rc1, most suggestions look very good indeed.

And as to performance, there's the no-regression report from Yanmin
running it through the Intel test farm. However Nick also had a
particular workload he wanted to test, Nick, do you think you've got a
few spare minutes to dig that workload up and give it a run?

But I guess you're right, there's always a chance someone hits
something, and I guess there's nothing to it but to deal with it when
that comes..