Re: [GIT PULL] Early boot SLAB for 2.6.31

[Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>]

* Pekka Enberg <penberg@cs.helsinki.fi> wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 11:43 PM, Ingo Molnar<mingo@elte.hu> wrote:
> >
> > * Pekka Enberg <penberg@cs.helsinki.fi> wrote:
> >
> >> Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, 10 Jun 2009, Pekka J Enberg wrote:
> >>
> >>>> I already have patches for that but they are against the -tip
> >>>> tree so I think we ought to just merge this series to mainline
> >>>> and fix everything up in subsystem trees for 2.6.31 proper.
> >>>
> >>> Hmm. Are there any reasons why the scheduler fixups can't go in
> >>> this series? Do they depend on other things in -tip?
> >>
> >> The patches are rebased to -tip, yeah. I can do a version against
> >> your tree if you want but that will mean merge conflicts for Ingo.
> >> Hmm?
> >
> > I'm a tiny bit nervous about the tested-ness of the patches. Such
> > stuff rarely works at first try. But it's obviously nice changes.
> 
> Yeah, I was thinking of sitting on them until 2.6.32 and put them 
> into linux-next after the merge window closes. [...]

Nah, that would be unreasonably long.

> [...] But Linus seems to want them and with the fallback in place, 
> we can probably fix any fall out quite easily.

Yeah.

> > What kind of conflicts are there against -tip? The diffstat 
> > suggests it's mostly in-SLAB code, right? There shouldnt be much 
> > to conflict, except kmemcheck - which has more or less trivial 
> > callbacks there.
> 
> The conflicting bits are the patches that remove bootmem allocator 
> uses in arch/x86 and kernel/sched.c.

Give me an hour and i'll get some minimal testing done.

	Ingo