From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 01:12:04 -0700 From: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: use-once cleanup Message-Id: <20060727011204.87033366.akpm@osdl.org> In-Reply-To: <44C86FB9.6090709@redhat.com> References: <1153168829.31891.89.camel@lappy> <44C86FB9.6090709@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Rik van Riel Cc: a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl, linux-mm@kvack.org, torvalds@osdl.org, piggin@cyberone.com.au, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 03:48:09 -0400 Rik van Riel wrote: > Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > Hi, > > > > This is yet another implementation of the PG_useonce cleanup spoken of > > during the VM summit. > > After getting bitten by rsync yet again, I guess it's time to insist > that this patch gets merged... > > Andrew, could you merge this? Pretty please? ;) > Guys, this is a performance patch, right? One which has no published performance testing results, right? It would be somewhat odd to merge it under these circumstances. And this applies to all of these hey-this-is-cool-but-i-didnt-bother-testing-it MM patches which people are throwing around. This stuff is *hard*. It has a bad tendency to cause nasty problems which only become known months after the code is merged. I shouldn't have to describe all this, but - Identify the workloads which it's supposed to improve, set up tests, run tests, publish results. - Identify the workloads which it's expected to damage, set up tests, run tests, publish results. - Identify workloads which aren't expected to be impacted, make a good effort at demonstrating that they are not impacted. - Perform stability/stress testing, publish results. Writing the code is about 5% of the effort for this sort of thing. Yes, we can toss it in the tree and see what happens. But it tends to be the case that unless someone does targetted testing such as the above, regressions simply aren't noticed for long periods of time. Just the (unchangelogged) changes to the when-to-call-mark_page_accessed() logic are a big deal. Probably these should be a separate patch - separately changelogged, separately tested, separately justified. Performance testing is *everything* for this sort of patch and afaict none has been done, so it's as if it hadn't been written, no? -- 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