From: Chris Mason <chris.mason@oracle.com>
To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org>
Cc: devzero@web.de, david@lang.hm, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Subject: Re: Where do we stand with the Xen patches?
Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 09:10:51 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090519131051.GA11318@think> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4A10BFE8.9020703@goop.org>
On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 06:54:48PM -0700, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> devzero@web.de wrote:
>> or is maintaining two different kernel packages a problem?
>>
>
> Yes, distros hate the proliferation of kernel packages with different
> config options, partly because of the combinatorial explosion (32 vs 64,
> UP vs SMP, PAE vs non-PAE...). An explicit design intent of all the Xen
> work is that it can be compile-time enabled without any (significant)
> effect on native performance, so that the decision to enable Xen doesn't
> have any downsides (either in terms of raw performance or maintenance of
> the kernel package).
There is a long list of CONFIG_* that had performance impacts when
enabled later had that impact tuned away. Especially now that
the source of the performance problem is understood, it makes sense to
me to merge and then focus energy on fixing it in tree instead of
spending time maintaining the out of tree patches.
-chris
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-05-19 13:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-05-17 19:46 Where do we stand with the Xen patches? devzero
2009-05-18 1:54 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2009-05-19 13:10 ` Chris Mason [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2009-05-17 18:37 devzero
2009-05-17 19:25 ` david
2009-05-17 19:33 ` Arjan van de Ven
2009-05-14 19:54 Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2009-05-15 18:35 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-05-15 19:59 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2009-05-18 1:36 ` FUJITA Tomonori
2009-05-18 1:42 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2009-05-18 8:40 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-05-19 5:27 ` FUJITA Tomonori
2009-05-19 13:03 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-05-19 15:30 ` FUJITA Tomonori
2009-05-19 15:56 ` Ian Campbell
2009-05-20 17:06 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2009-05-21 8:54 ` FUJITA Tomonori
2009-05-21 10:27 ` Ian Campbell
2009-05-21 10:28 ` Ian Campbell
2009-05-21 10:39 ` FUJITA Tomonori
2009-05-21 10:48 ` Ian Campbell
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=20090519131051.GA11318@think \
--to=chris.mason@oracle.com \
--cc=david@lang.hm \
--cc=devzero@web.de \
--cc=jeremy@goop.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).