From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 16:30:37 -0700 From: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [patch 0/3] 2.6.17 radix-tree: updates and lockless Message-Id: <20060620163037.6ff2c8e7.akpm@osdl.org> In-Reply-To: <1150844989.1901.52.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <20060408134635.22479.79269.sendpatchset@linux.site> <20060620153555.0bd61e7b.akpm@osdl.org> <1150844989.1901.52.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt Cc: npiggin@suse.de, Paul.McKenney@us.ibm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > > On Tue, 2006-06-20 at 15:35 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > So given those complexities, and the lack of a _user_ of > > radix-tree-rcu-lockless-readside.patch, it doesn't look like 2.6.18 stuff > > at this time. > > So what should I do ? panic! > leave the bug in ppc64 or kill it's scalability > when taking interrupts ? You have one user already, me. I didn't know that 30 minutes ago ;) > From what Nick > says, the patch has been beaten up pretty heavily and seems stable.... Well as I say, the tree_lock crash is way more important. We need to work out what we're going to do then get that fixed, backport the fix to -stable then rebase the radix-tree patches on top and get radix-tree-rcu-lockless-readside.patch tested and reviewed. I guess we can do all that in time for -rc1, but not knowing _how_ we'll be fixing the tree_lock crash is holding things up. Paul, if you could take a close look at the RCU aspects of this work it'd help, thanks. btw guys, theory has it that code which was submitted post-2.6.n is too late for 2.6.n+1.. -- 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: email@kvack.org