Re: [RFC 00/15] x86_64: Optimize percpu accesses

[Mike Travis]

Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Mike Travis <travis@xxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/