On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 02:35:46PM -0600, Jim Schutt wrote: > Hi Mel, > > On 08/12/2012 02:22 PM, Mel Gorman wrote: > > > > >I went through the patch again but only found the following which is a > >weak candidate. Still, can you retest with the following patch on top and > >CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING set please? > > > > I've gotten in several hours of testing on this patch with > no issues at all, and no output from CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING > (I'm assuming it would show up on a serial console). So, > it seems to me this patch has done the trick. >
Super. > CPU utilization is staying under control, and write-out rate > is good. > Even better. > You can add my Tested-by: as you see fit. If you work > up any refinements and would like me to test, please > let me know. > I'll be adding your Tested-by and I'll keep you cc'd on the series. It'll look a little different because I'm expect to adjust it slightly to match Andrew's tree but there should be no major surprises and my expectation is that testing a -rc kernel after it gets merged is all that is necessary. I'm planning to backport this to -stable but it'll remain to be seen if I can convince the relevant maintainers that it should be merged. Thanks. -- Mel Gorman SUSE Labs -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
