Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 16 Jun 2002 11:22:08 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 16 Jun 2002 11:22:07 -0400 Received: from mx1.elte.hu ([157.181.1.137]:39311 "HELO mx1.elte.hu") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Sun, 16 Jun 2002 11:22:07 -0400 Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2002 17:19:34 +0200 (CEST) From: Ingo Molnar Reply-To: Ingo Molnar To: Robert Love Cc: "David S. Miller" , , Subject: Re: [PATCH] 2.4-ac: sparc64 support for O(1) scheduler In-Reply-To: <1024075953.4799.224.camel@sinai> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1231 Lines: 28 On 14 Jun 2002, Robert Love wrote: > > Ummm what is with all of those switch_mm() hacks? Is this an attempt > > to work around the locking problems? Please don't do that as it is > > going to kill performance and having ifdef sparc64 sched.c changes is > > ugly to say the least. > > > > Ingo posted the correct fix to the locking problem with the patch > > he posted the other day, that is what should go into the -ac patches. > > I am explicitly refraining from sending Alan any code that is not > well-tested in 2.5 and my machines first. As Ingo's new switch_mm() > bits are not even in 2.5 yet, [...] Linus applied them already, they will be in 2.5.22. They fix real bugs and i've seen no problems on my testboxes. Those bits are a must for SMP x86 and Sparc64 as well, there is absolutely no reason to selectively delay their backmerge. Besides the last task_rq_lock() optimization which got undone in 2.5 already, all the recent scheduler bits i posted are needed. Ingo - 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/