On Wed, 2 Mar 2011 05:38:56 +0100 Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 01, 2011 at 04:41:43PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > > I'd be pretty worried about jamming this into 2.6.38 at this late > > stage. And some vague talk about something Arthur did really doesn't > > help a lot! It would be better to have some good, solid quantitative > > justification for what is really an emergency patch. > > It is a emergency patch. This is zero risk, this brings back kswapd in > 2.6.37 status! The original patch description didn't explain this. And no patch is "zero risk", especially at -rc6. > 2.6.38 added a new feature, I'm reverting it because > it's screwing benchmarks. And we have no useful information about benchmark results. > > Bear in mind that we always have a middle option: merge a patch into > > 2.6.39-rc1 and tag it for backporting into 2.6.38.x. That gives us > > more time to test it and to generally give it a shakedown. But to make > > decisions like that and to commend a patch to the -stable maintainers, > > we need to provide better information please. > > This is 100% tested in 2.6.37. The new code was tested in 2.6.38-rc > and testing return -EFAIL. So we must revert this change. What change? Commit ID? What testing returned -EFAIL? That's different from slower benchmark results. > This patch > is doing nothing but reverting compaction-kswapd code merged in > 2.6.38-rc. The old code is fully tested. > > > Also, "This goes on top of the two lowlatency fixes for compaction" > > isn't particularly helpful. I need to verify that the referred-to > > patches are already in mainline but I don't have a clue what this > > description refers to. More specificity, please - it helps avoid > > mistakes. > > Those two patches are fully orthogonal with this one. *What* two patches??? I don't have a clue which patches you're referring to. Patches have names, please use them. > Andrew already > has them in -mm and there's no need to analyse those simultaneously > with this one. > > I mentioned those two because those two are also important fixes to > avoid compaction to disable interrupts for too long, but they have no > actual relation to this one. One of the two fixes that Mel sent was > actually embedded into my patch but he splitted it off rightfully > because it has no relation. This is just hopeless. Please, just send the thing again and this time include a *full* description of what it does and why it does it. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>