On Mon, Aug 3, 2020 at 6:14 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> I hope I got it right and this is the latest version of your patches. Btw.
> do you still think that increasing PAGE_WAIT_TABLE_BITS is reasonable.
I suspect it's still very reasonable, but I'd love to have numbers for it.
> In the meantime I have learned that the customer suffering from the
> issue is very unlikely to reboot the machine anytime soon or even
> willing to test a non-trivial patch. We do not own any machine which
> exhibit this problem unfortunately. So it is quite unlikely I can
> help with testing.
Ok.
> Also does it make sense to put this into mmotm tree for a while to get a
> larger testing coverage?
Well, I did the 5.8 release yesterday, so I just put it in the tree
for the 5.9 merge window - I've been running it locally since I posted
it, and while Hugh couldn't prove it improved anything, his results
certainly also didn't say it was bad.
So anybody that tests my top-of-tree will be testing that thing now,
which is likely more than linux-next or mmotm gets (outside of build
testing and the robots).
Of course, I don't know how many people run my development tree,
particularly during the busy merge window, but hey, at worst it will
be in the next linux-next that way. At best, it's not just me, but a
number of other developers.
Linus
