Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757350AbYGIVD5 (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 Jul 2008 17:03:57 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754060AbYGIVDr (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 Jul 2008 17:03:47 -0400 Received: from relay1.sgi.com ([192.48.171.29]:56712 "EHLO relay.sgi.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751489AbYGIVDq (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 Jul 2008 17:03:46 -0400 Message-ID: <487527B1.4070305@sgi.com> Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2008 14:03:45 -0700 From: Mike Travis User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (X11/20070801) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ingo Molnar CC: Jeremy Fitzhardinge , "H. Peter Anvin" , Andrew Morton , "Eric W. Biederman" , Christoph Lameter , Jack Steiner , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC 00/15] x86_64: Optimize percpu accesses References: <20080709165129.292635000@polaris-admin.engr.sgi.com> <4874F30C.8020800@zytor.com> <4874F909.7060503@goop.org> <4874FEDF.90404@sgi.com> <20080709193404.GC4804@elte.hu> In-Reply-To: <20080709193404.GC4804@elte.hu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1574 Lines: 37 Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Mike Travis wrote: > >>> This fragility makes me very nervous. It seems hard enough to get >>> this stuff working with current tools; making it work over the whole >>> range of supported tools looks like its going to be hard. >> (me too ;-) >> >> Once I get a solid version working with (at least) gcc-4.2.4, then >> regression testing with older tools will be easier, or at least a >> table of results can be produced. > > the problem is, we cannot just put it even into tip/master if there's no > short-term hope of fixing a problem it triggers. gcc-4.2.3 is solid for > me otherwise, for series of thousands of randomly built kernels. Great, I'll request we load gcc-4.2.3 on our devel server. > > can we just leave out the zero-based percpu stuff safely and could i > test the rest of your series - or are there dependencies? I think > zero-based percpu, while nice in theory, is probably just a very small > positive effect so it's not a life or death issue. (or is there any > deeper, semantic reason why we'd want it?) I sort of assumed that zero-based would not make it into 2.6.26-rcX, and no, reaching 4096 cpus does not require it. The other patches I've been submitting are more general and will fix possible panics (like stack overflows, etc.) Thanks, Mike -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/