Re: kernbench on 512p

Jesse Barnes
2004-08-23T21:52:28Z

On Friday, August 20, 2004 1:19 pm, Manfred Spraul wrote:
> Jesse Barnes wrote:
> >Looks like a bit more context has changed. Manfred, care to respin
> > against -mm3 so I can test?
>
> The patches are attached. Just boot-tested on a single-cpu system.
>
> Three changes:
> - I've placed the per-group structure into rcu_state. That's simpler but
> wrong: the state should be allocated from node-local memory, not a big
> global array.
> - I found a bug/race in the cpu_offline path: When the last cpu of a
> group goes offline then the group must be forced into quiescent state.
> The "&& (!forced)" was missing.
> - I've removed the spin_unlock_wait(). It was intended to synchronize
> cpu_online_mask changes with the calculation of ->outstanding. Paul
> convinced me that this is not necessary.

I haven't been able to boot successfully with this patch applied. Things seem
to get real slow around the time init starts, and the system becomes
unusable. I applied them on top of stock 2.6.8.1-mm4, which boots fine
without them (testing that again to make sure, but I booted it a few times
this morning w/o incident).

Jesse