Re: bisected boot regression post 2.6.25-rc3.. please revert

[Arjan van de Ven]

Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Mon, 3 Mar 2008, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > > interesting observation: if I turn the macros into inlines... the 
> > > difference
> > > goes away.
> > >
> > > I'm half tempted to just do it as inline period ... any objections ?
> >
> > Yes, I object. I want to understand why it would matter. If this is a 
> > compiler bug, it's a really rather bad one. And if it's just some 
> > stupid bug in our pmd_bad() macro, I still want to know what the 
> > problem was.
> >
> > Can you compile both ways and look at what changed at the offending 
> > site (which is apparently "follow_page()")?
> >
> > And do you have some odd compiler version?
>
> it's the F9 gcc, so yeah it's really new.
>
> I'm staring at the disassembly and it's quite different but 
> follow_page() is rather large;
> trying to  make a smaller testcase now

sadly a more isolated testcase doesn't show the same behavior yet;
so it's some fun interaction ;(

more staring at the assembly for me
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/