Jarek Poplawski wrote:You could have tried the optimization before, and gotten better performance. But if without solid knowledge that the optimization is _valid_, you risk having a kernel that performs great but suffer the occational glitch and therefore is unstable and crash the machine "now and then". This sort of thing can't really be figured out by experimentation, because the bad cases might happen only with some processors, some combinations of memory/chipsets, or with some minimum number of processors. Such problems can be very hard to find, especially considering that other plain bugs also cause crashes. Therefore, the "ineffective code" was used because it was the only safe alternative. Now we know, so now we may optimize. Helge Hafting -
| Greg KH | [GIT PATCH] driver core patches against 2.6.24 |
| James Bottomley | Re: Announce: Linux-next (Or Andrew's dream :-)) |
| Andrew Morton | echo mem > /sys/power/state |
| Peter Zijlstra | [PATCH 00/23] per device dirty throttling -v8 |
git: | |
| David Miller | Re: [PATCH] pkt_sched: Destroy gen estimators under rtnl_lock(). |
| David Miller | [GIT]: Networking |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 18/37] dccp: Support for Mandatory options |
| Michael S. Tsirkin | Re: [RFC PATCH v2 03/19] vbus: add connection-client helper infrastructure |
| NeilBrown | [PATCH 00/18] Assorted md patches headed for 2.6.30 |
| Justin Piszcz | General question (scheduler) with SSDs? |
| Neil Brown | Re: Any hope for a 27 disk RAID6+1HS array with four disks reporting "No md superb... |
| Ryan Wagoner | High IO Wait with RAID 1 |
