* Andrew Morton <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Chen, Kenneth W" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > Here is a respin of the patch with more documentation.
> >
>
> Thanks. Can you send me an unwordwrapped version off-list?
>
> Did I mention "ug"?
>
> Ingo, what's your plan here?
I really dont like the sysctl hack. Firstly, which precise kernel
version was tested - do we know that it wasnt e.g. the smpnice
regression interfering? Secondly, i dont like the sysctl concept itself:
i really think we should try to find a way for _applications_ to be
woken up according to their workload.
If we add the sysctl then basically only the benchmarkers will use it -
99.99% of users will get whatever default we (and distros) provide, and
the problem wont be solved in any way. In fact, we'll never be able to
get rid of the knob again i suspect. I'd rather have the wakeup patch
reverted, and some better method presented. Adding the sysctl just
removes all the incentive for people to work on solving this problem in
some real way.
I also refuse to regard this as any sort of emergency that justifies the
sysctl hack. The test results came clearly late and i suggested to the
benchmarking guys a long time ago that if they want us to care about
their workload, and if it's complex to reproduce the benchmark, they
should distill some simpler test-app for us to so that we can reproduce
those cases. I'd much rather like to do the simplest thing: revert the
wakeup patch (we were fine without it for 15 kernel releases), than to
paper over [permanently!] this particular incarnation of a wider
problem.
Ingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
