From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Anton Blanchard <anton@samba.org>,
mahesh@linux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, mingo@elte.hu,
benh@kernel.crashing.org
Subject: Re: [regression] 3.0-rc boot failure -- bisected to cd4ea6ae3982
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 16:58:30 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1311173910.5345.94.camel@twins> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+55aFxzaaMj8OUaust90c_hYKzg8NpRfmX4SzJ9SMwXzg5ocA@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed, 2011-07-20 at 07:40 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 5:14 AM, Anton Blanchard <anton@samba.org> wrote:
> >
> >> So with that fix the patch makes the machine happy again?
> >
> > Yes, the machine looks fine with the patches applied. Thanks!
>
> Ok, so what's the situation for 3.0 (I'm waiting for some RCU
> resolution now)? Anton's patch may be small, but that's just the tiny
> fixup patch to Peter's much scarier one ;)
Right, so we can either merge my scary patches now and have 3.0 boot on
16+ node machines (and risk breaking something), or delay them until
3.0.1 and have 16+ node machines suffer a little.
The alternative quick hack is simply to disable the node domain, but
that'll be detrimental to regular machines in that the top domain used
to have NODE sd_flags will now have ALL_NODE sd_flags which are much
less aggressive.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: mahesh@linux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Anton Blanchard <anton@samba.org>,
mingo@elte.hu, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [regression] 3.0-rc boot failure -- bisected to cd4ea6ae3982
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 16:58:30 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1311173910.5345.94.camel@twins> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+55aFxzaaMj8OUaust90c_hYKzg8NpRfmX4SzJ9SMwXzg5ocA@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed, 2011-07-20 at 07:40 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 5:14 AM, Anton Blanchard <anton@samba.org> wrote:
> >
> >> So with that fix the patch makes the machine happy again?
> >
> > Yes, the machine looks fine with the patches applied. Thanks!
>=20
> Ok, so what's the situation for 3.0 (I'm waiting for some RCU
> resolution now)? Anton's patch may be small, but that's just the tiny
> fixup patch to Peter's much scarier one ;)
Right, so we can either merge my scary patches now and have 3.0 boot on
16+ node machines (and risk breaking something), or delay them until
3.0.1 and have 16+ node machines suffer a little.
The alternative quick hack is simply to disable the node domain, but
that'll be detrimental to regular machines in that the top domain used
to have NODE sd_flags will now have ALL_NODE sd_flags which are much
less aggressive.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-07-20 14:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 43+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-07-07 10:22 [regression] 3.0-rc boot failure -- bisected to cd4ea6ae3982 Mahesh J Salgaonkar
2011-07-07 10:22 ` Mahesh J Salgaonkar
2011-07-07 10:59 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-07-07 10:59 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-07-07 11:55 ` Mahesh J Salgaonkar
2011-07-07 11:55 ` Mahesh J Salgaonkar
2011-07-07 12:28 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-07-07 12:28 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-07-14 0:34 ` Anton Blanchard
2011-07-14 0:34 ` Anton Blanchard
2011-07-14 4:35 ` Anton Blanchard
2011-07-14 4:35 ` Anton Blanchard
2011-07-14 13:16 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-07-14 13:16 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-07-15 0:45 ` Anton Blanchard
2011-07-15 0:45 ` Anton Blanchard
2011-07-15 8:37 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-07-15 8:37 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-07-18 21:35 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-07-18 21:35 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-07-19 4:44 ` Anton Blanchard
2011-07-19 4:44 ` Anton Blanchard
2011-07-19 10:21 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-07-19 10:21 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-07-20 2:03 ` Anton Blanchard
2011-07-20 2:03 ` Anton Blanchard
2011-07-20 10:14 ` Anton Blanchard
2011-07-20 10:14 ` Anton Blanchard
2011-07-20 10:45 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-07-20 10:45 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-07-20 12:14 ` Anton Blanchard
2011-07-20 12:14 ` Anton Blanchard
2011-07-20 14:40 ` Linus Torvalds
2011-07-20 14:40 ` Linus Torvalds
2011-07-20 14:58 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2011-07-20 14:58 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-07-20 16:04 ` Linus Torvalds
2011-07-20 16:04 ` Linus Torvalds
2011-07-20 16:42 ` Ingo Molnar
2011-07-20 16:42 ` Ingo Molnar
2011-07-20 16:42 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-07-20 16:42 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-07-20 17:29 ` [tip:sched/urgent] sched: Avoid creating superfluous NUMA domains on non-NUMA systems tip-bot for Peter Zijlstra
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1311173910.5345.94.camel@twins \
--to=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=anton@samba.org \
--cc=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=mahesh@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.