From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDB5BC432C0 for ; Mon, 25 Nov 2019 16:34:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADFAA20740 for ; Mon, 25 Nov 2019 16:34:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728909AbfKYQen (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Nov 2019 11:34:43 -0500 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:46556 "EHLO mx1.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728683AbfKYQen (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Nov 2019 11:34:43 -0500 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de Received: from relay2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.220.254]) by mx1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCE8DAF42; Mon, 25 Nov 2019 16:34:41 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2019 16:34:38 +0000 From: Mel Gorman To: Valentin Schneider Cc: Ingo Molnar , Linus Torvalds , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Peter Zijlstra , Thomas Gleixner , Vincent Guittot , Dietmar Eggemann , Ben Segall , Steven Rostedt , Juri Lelli Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] scheduler changes for v5.5 Message-ID: <20191125163438.GL28938@suse.de> References: <20191125125944.GA22218@gmail.com> <9af8a5eb-5104-ad0b-bf46-dedb65d66a07@arm.com> <20191125150811.GA116487@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 04:20:21PM +0000, Valentin Schneider wrote: > On 25/11/2019 15:08, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > We can give testers a linearized tree for testing, should this come up > > (which I doubt it will ...), ok? > > > > My worry (and I think Mel's) is on performance bisection of the mainline > tree (not specifically on the load balancer rework), by LKP or else. It's > not something I personally do (nor expect to do in the foreseeable future), > so Mel is much better positioned than I to argue for/against this. > This was a concern. If there is a regression then a bisection may point to one of the earlier patches. That will be ok as long as people remember to look at the whole series instead of just the patch the bisection identifies. The second source of confusion may be that LKP reports a regression followed by a gain that will lack a comparison with the baseline so we may not be able to rely on LKP to detect regressions/gains from the series. It's inconvenient but not critical enough to dump the testing the existing branch has. -- Mel Gorman SUSE Labs