From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1761203AbZFJUvl (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Jun 2009 16:51:41 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756391AbZFJUvc (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Jun 2009 16:51:32 -0400 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:48184 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753493AbZFJUvc (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Jun 2009 16:51:32 -0400 Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 22:50:26 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Pekka Enberg Cc: Linus Torvalds , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, cl@linux-foundation.org, hannes@cmpxchg.org, mpm@selenic.com, npiggin@suse.de, yinghai@kernel.org Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Early boot SLAB for 2.6.31 Message-ID: <20090610205026.GC8147@elte.hu> References: <4A3017D1.5010708@cs.helsinki.fi> <20090610204318.GA8147@elte.hu> <84144f020906101347y3e250f4bme2d1c60dd5993ffc@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <84144f020906101347y3e250f4bme2d1c60dd5993ffc@mail.gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.5 -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Pekka Enberg wrote: > On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 11:43 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > * Pekka Enberg 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