From: Pekka Enberg <penberg@cs.helsinki.fi> To: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com> Cc: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>, linux-mm@kvack.org, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> Subject: Re: [RFC V2 SLEB 01/14] slab: Introduce a constant for a unspecified node. Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2010 08:55:18 +0300 [thread overview] Message-ID: <AANLkTimFmupRJ-np-V9TeiUNAqXmnyui3uYMs3PD1bWB@mail.gmail.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1006081633450.19582@chino.kir.corp.google.com> Hi David, (I'm LKML and Ingo to CC.) On Tue, 8 Jun 2010, Pekka Enberg wrote: >> > An incremental patch in this case would change everything that the >> > original patch did, so it'd probably be best to simply revert and queue >> > the updated version. >> >> If I revert it, we end up with two commits instead of one. And I >> really prefer not to *rebase* a topic branch even though it might be >> doable for a small tree like slab.git. On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 2:35 AM, David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com> wrote: > I commented on improvements for three of the five patches you've added as > slub cleanups and Christoph has shown an interest in proposing them again > (perhaps seperating patches 1-5 out as a seperate set of cleanups?), so > it's probably cleaner to just reset and reapply with the revisions. As I said, we can probably get away with that in slab.git because we're so small but that doesn't work in general. If we ignore the fact how painful the actual rebase operation is (there's a 'sleb/core' branch that shares the commits), I don't think the revised history is 'cleaner' by any means. The current patches are known to be good (I've tested them) but if I just replace them, all the testing effort was basically wasted. So if I need to do a git-bisect, for example, I didn't benefit one bit from testing the original patches. The other issue is patch metadata. If I just nuke the existing patches, I'm also could be dropping important stuff like Tested-by or Reported-by tags. Yes, I realize that in this particular case, there's none but the approach works only as long as you remember exactly what you merged. There are probably other benefits for larger trees but those two are enough for me to keep my published branches append-only. On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 2:35 AM, David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com> wrote: > Let me know if my suggested changes should be add-on patches to > Christoph's first five and I'll come up with a three patch series to do > just that. Yes, I really would prefer incremental patches on top of the 'slub/cleanups' branch. Pekka
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Pekka Enberg <penberg@cs.helsinki.fi> To: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com> Cc: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>, linux-mm@kvack.org, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> Subject: Re: [RFC V2 SLEB 01/14] slab: Introduce a constant for a unspecified node. Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2010 08:55:18 +0300 [thread overview] Message-ID: <AANLkTimFmupRJ-np-V9TeiUNAqXmnyui3uYMs3PD1bWB@mail.gmail.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1006081633450.19582@chino.kir.corp.google.com> Hi David, (I'm LKML and Ingo to CC.) On Tue, 8 Jun 2010, Pekka Enberg wrote: >> > An incremental patch in this case would change everything that the >> > original patch did, so it'd probably be best to simply revert and queue >> > the updated version. >> >> If I revert it, we end up with two commits instead of one. And I >> really prefer not to *rebase* a topic branch even though it might be >> doable for a small tree like slab.git. On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 2:35 AM, David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com> wrote: > I commented on improvements for three of the five patches you've added as > slub cleanups and Christoph has shown an interest in proposing them again > (perhaps seperating patches 1-5 out as a seperate set of cleanups?), so > it's probably cleaner to just reset and reapply with the revisions. As I said, we can probably get away with that in slab.git because we're so small but that doesn't work in general. If we ignore the fact how painful the actual rebase operation is (there's a 'sleb/core' branch that shares the commits), I don't think the revised history is 'cleaner' by any means. The current patches are known to be good (I've tested them) but if I just replace them, all the testing effort was basically wasted. So if I need to do a git-bisect, for example, I didn't benefit one bit from testing the original patches. The other issue is patch metadata. If I just nuke the existing patches, I'm also could be dropping important stuff like Tested-by or Reported-by tags. Yes, I realize that in this particular case, there's none but the approach works only as long as you remember exactly what you merged. There are probably other benefits for larger trees but those two are enough for me to keep my published branches append-only. On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 2:35 AM, David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com> wrote: > Let me know if my suggested changes should be add-on patches to > Christoph's first five and I'll come up with a three patch series to do > just that. Yes, I really would prefer incremental patches on top of the 'slub/cleanups' branch. Pekka -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-06-09 5:55 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 89+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2010-05-21 21:14 [RFC V2 SLEB 00/14] The Enhanced(hopefully) Slab Allocator Christoph Lameter 2010-05-21 21:14 ` [RFC V2 SLEB 01/14] slab: Introduce a constant for a unspecified node Christoph Lameter 2010-06-07 21:44 ` David Rientjes 2010-06-07 22:30 ` Christoph Lameter 2010-06-08 5:41 ` Pekka Enberg 2010-06-08 6:20 ` David Rientjes 2010-06-08 6:34 ` Pekka Enberg 2010-06-08 23:35 ` David Rientjes 2010-06-09 5:55 ` Pekka Enberg [this message] 2010-06-09 5:55 ` Pekka Enberg 2010-06-09 6:20 ` David Rientjes 2010-06-09 6:20 ` David Rientjes 2010-05-21 21:14 ` [RFC V2 SLEB 02/14] SLUB: Constants need UL Christoph Lameter 2010-05-21 21:14 ` [RFC V2 SLEB 03/14] SLUB: Use kmem_cache flags to detect if Slab is in debugging mode Christoph Lameter 2010-06-08 3:57 ` David Rientjes 2010-05-21 21:14 ` [RFC V2 SLEB 04/14] SLUB: discard_slab_unlock Christoph Lameter 2010-05-21 21:14 ` [RFC V2 SLEB 05/14] SLUB: is_kmalloc_cache Christoph Lameter 2010-06-08 8:54 ` David Rientjes 2010-05-21 21:14 ` [RFC V2 SLEB 06/14] SLUB: Get rid of the kmalloc_node slab Christoph Lameter 2010-06-09 6:14 ` David Rientjes 2010-06-09 16:14 ` Christoph Lameter 2010-06-09 16:26 ` Pekka Enberg 2010-06-10 6:07 ` Pekka Enberg 2010-05-21 21:14 ` [RFC V2 SLEB 07/14] SLEB: The Enhanced Slab Allocator Christoph Lameter 2010-05-21 21:15 ` [RFC V2 SLEB 08/14] SLEB: Resize cpu queue Christoph Lameter 2010-05-21 21:15 ` [RFC V2 SLEB 09/14] SLED: Get rid of useless function Christoph Lameter 2010-05-21 21:15 ` [RFC V2 SLEB 10/14] SLEB: Remove MAX_OBJS limitation Christoph Lameter 2010-05-21 21:15 ` [RFC V2 SLEB 11/14] SLEB: Add per node cache (with a fixed size for now) Christoph Lameter 2010-05-21 21:15 ` [RFC V2 SLEB 12/14] SLEB: Make the size of the shared cache configurable Christoph Lameter 2010-05-21 21:15 ` [RFC V2 SLEB 13/14] SLEB: Enhanced NUMA support Christoph Lameter 2010-05-21 21:15 ` [RFC V2 SLEB 14/14] SLEB: Allocate off node objects from remote shared caches Christoph Lameter 2010-05-22 8:37 ` [RFC V2 SLEB 00/14] The Enhanced(hopefully) Slab Allocator Pekka Enberg 2010-05-24 7:03 ` Nick Piggin 2010-05-24 15:06 ` Christoph Lameter 2010-05-25 2:06 ` Nick Piggin 2010-05-25 6:55 ` Pekka Enberg 2010-05-25 7:07 ` Nick Piggin 2010-05-25 8:03 ` Pekka Enberg 2010-05-25 8:03 ` Pekka Enberg 2010-05-25 8:16 ` Nick Piggin 2010-05-25 8:16 ` Nick Piggin 2010-05-25 9:19 ` Pekka Enberg 2010-05-25 9:19 ` Pekka Enberg 2010-05-25 9:34 ` Nick Piggin 2010-05-25 9:34 ` Nick Piggin 2010-05-25 9:53 ` Pekka Enberg 2010-05-25 9:53 ` Pekka Enberg 2010-05-25 10:19 ` Nick Piggin 2010-05-25 10:19 ` Nick Piggin 2010-05-25 10:45 ` Pekka Enberg 2010-05-25 10:45 ` Pekka Enberg 2010-05-25 11:06 ` Nick Piggin 2010-05-25 11:06 ` Nick Piggin 2010-05-25 15:13 ` Linus Torvalds 2010-05-25 15:13 ` Linus Torvalds 2010-05-25 15:43 ` Nick Piggin 2010-05-25 15:43 ` Nick Piggin 2010-05-25 17:02 ` Pekka Enberg 2010-05-25 17:02 ` Pekka Enberg 2010-05-25 17:19 ` Nick Piggin 2010-05-25 17:19 ` Nick Piggin 2010-05-25 17:35 ` Pekka Enberg 2010-05-25 17:35 ` Pekka Enberg 2010-05-25 17:40 ` Nick Piggin 2010-05-25 17:40 ` Nick Piggin 2010-05-25 10:07 ` David Rientjes 2010-05-25 10:07 ` David Rientjes 2010-05-25 10:02 ` David Rientjes 2010-05-25 10:02 ` David Rientjes 2010-05-25 10:47 ` Pekka Enberg 2010-05-25 10:47 ` Pekka Enberg 2010-05-25 19:57 ` David Rientjes 2010-05-25 19:57 ` David Rientjes 2010-05-25 14:13 ` Christoph Lameter 2010-05-25 14:34 ` Nick Piggin 2010-05-25 14:43 ` Nick Piggin 2010-05-25 14:48 ` Christoph Lameter 2010-05-25 15:11 ` Nick Piggin 2010-05-25 15:28 ` Christoph Lameter 2010-05-25 15:37 ` Nick Piggin 2010-05-27 14:24 ` Christoph Lameter 2010-05-27 14:37 ` Nick Piggin 2010-05-27 15:52 ` Christoph Lameter 2010-05-27 16:07 ` Nick Piggin 2010-05-27 16:57 ` Christoph Lameter 2010-05-28 8:39 ` Nick Piggin 2010-05-25 14:40 ` Nick Piggin 2010-05-25 14:48 ` Christoph Lameter 2010-05-25 15:12 ` Nick Piggin
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=AANLkTimFmupRJ-np-V9TeiUNAqXmnyui3uYMs3PD1bWB@mail.gmail.com \ --to=penberg@cs.helsinki.fi \ --cc=cl@linux.com \ --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \ --cc=mingo@elte.hu \ --cc=rientjes@google.com \ /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: linkBe 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.