Linux v2.6.27-rc1

2008/7/31 Dmitry Adamushko <dmitry.adamushko@gmail.com>:[color=blue][color=green]
>>
>> could you please send this patch with a changelog, explanation, etc.?[/color]
>
> Now having thought a bit more on that issue, I tend to think that this
> patch is not all that nice (so I agree with Max here).
>
> The root problem is the way set_cpus_allowed_ptr() is used in
> microcode's cpu-hotplug handler. With cpu_active_map in place
> set_cpus_allowed_ptr() can't migrate a task on the soon-to-be-online
> cpu from withing a CPU_ONLINE handler (more in details here:
> [url]http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/7/24/260[/url])
>
> Basically, this patch marks a 'cpu' available for other tasks to be
> migrated to it before sending CPU_ONLINE notification to
> subscribers... [ now, there can be CPU_ONLINE
> [url]http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/7/24/260handlers[/url] that has something to do
> with enabling migration/load-balancing. e.g. migration_call() ,
> although it has the highest prio and is supposed to run first in a
> chain ]
>
> In another thread, I've asked whether doing 'microcode update' in
> start_secondary() (or even at the beginning of idle_cpu() would be
> better):
>
> pros:
> - it's done as early as possible (no other tasks has started running
> on a cpu yet);
> - no actions in cpu-hotplug;
>
> cons:
> - microcode sub-systems becomes visible outside of microcode.c _but_
> it's arch-specific part anyway + with object-oriented re-work (which
> is in -tip), I think it'd be that bad.[/color]

it was supposed to be "it'd be _not_ that bad"


--
Best regards,
Dmitry Adamushko
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email]majordomo@vger.kernel.org[/email]
More majordomo info at [url]http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html[/url]
Please read the FAQ at [url]http://www.tux.org/lkml/[/url]

On Wednesday, 30 of July 2008, Andrew Morton wrote:[color=blue]
> On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 09:59:18 -0700 (PDT) Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
>[color=green]
> > - I don't think the 'next' thing works as well for the occasional
> > developer that just has a few patches pending as it works for subsystem
> > maintainers that are used to it.[/color]
>
> Those people's patches are in -mm, which now holds maybe 100 or more
> "trees", many of which are small or empty.
>
> My project within the next couple of weeks is to get most of that
> material into linux-next. Stephen will be involved ;)
>[color=green]
> > IOW, I think 'next' needs enough infrastructure setup from the
> > developer side that I don't think it's reasonable for _everything_ to
> > go through next.[/color]
>
> True. But
>
> a) some of the problematic changes which we've seen simply _should_
> have been in linux-next. Some of them were even coming from
> developers whose trees are already in linux-next.
>
> b) A lot of the bugs which hit your tree would have been quickly
> found in linux-next too.
>
>
> But it's all shuffling deckchairs, really. Are we actually merging
> better code as a reasult of all of this? Are we being more careful and
> reviewing better and testing better?
>
> Don't think so.[/color]

Well, if the number of the regressions list entries can be regarded as a
pointer, then yes, we are. :-)

There are 28 entries in there right now, compared to 53 entries initially in
the list during the 2.6.26 cycle (see
[url]http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11167[/url] for reference).

Thanks,
Rafael
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email]majordomo@vger.kernel.org[/email]
More majordomo info at [url]http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html[/url]
Please read the FAQ at [url]http://www.tux.org/lkml/[/url]