Prev: [PATCH] x86-32: remove CONFIG_4KSTACKS
Next: USB: gadget: g_fs: possible invalid pointer reference bug fixed
From: Dave Hansen on 22 Jun 2010 12:40
On Sun, 2010-06-20 at 11:11 +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
> > That changes a few things. I bet all the contention we were seeing was
> > just from nr_to_scan=0 calls and not from actual shrink operations.
> > Perhaps we should just stop this set after patch 4.
> >
>
> At the very least, we should re-measure things.

Sure. I'll go back to the folks that found this in the first place and
see how these patches affect the contention we were seeing.

-- Dave

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo(a)vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
From: Avi Kivity on 22 Jul 2010 00:40
On 06/22/2010 07:32 PM, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On Sun, 2010-06-20 at 11:11 +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
>
>>> That changes a few things. I bet all the contention we were seeing was
>>> just from nr_to_scan=0 calls and not from actual shrink operations.
>>> Perhaps we should just stop this set after patch 4.
>>>
>>>
>> At the very least, we should re-measure things.
>>
> Sure. I'll go back to the folks that found this in the first place and
> see how these patches affect the contention we were seeing.
>

Dave, how did those tests go?

--
I have a truly marvellous patch that fixes the bug which this
signature is too narrow to contain.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo(a)vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
From: Dave Hansen on 22 Jul 2010 01:40
On Thu, 2010-07-22 at 07:36 +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 06/22/2010 07:32 PM, Dave Hansen wrote:
> > On Sun, 2010-06-20 at 11:11 +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
> >>> That changes a few things. I bet all the contention we were seeing was
> >>> just from nr_to_scan=0 calls and not from actual shrink operations.
> >>> Perhaps we should just stop this set after patch 4.
> >>>
> >> At the very least, we should re-measure things.
> >>
> > Sure. I'll go back to the folks that found this in the first place and
> > see how these patches affect the contention we were seeing.
>
> Dave, how did those tests go?

Still waiting on the folks that found this in the first place to
reproduce it and see if the patches help. I'll go nudge them some more.

-- Dave

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo(a)vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
From: Avi Kivity on 22 Jul 2010 01:50
On 07/22/2010 08:36 AM, Dave Hansen wrote:
>
>> Dave, how did those tests go?
>>
> Still waiting on the folks that found this in the first place to
> reproduce it and see if the patches help. I'll go nudge them some more.
>

The merge window is coming up soon, and I'd like these patches to go in.

--
I have a truly marvellous patch that fixes the bug which this
signature is too narrow to contain.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo(a)vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2
Prev: [PATCH] x86-32: remove CONFIG_4KSTACKS
Next: USB: gadget: g_fs: possible invalid pointer reference bug fixed