On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 12:09 AM, Heikki Linnakangas < hlinnakan...@vmware.com> wrote:
> > Jeff's patch seems to somewhat alleviate the huge fall in performance I'm > otherwise seeing without the nonlocked-test patch. With the nonlocked-test > patch, if you squint you can see a miniscule benefit. > > I wasn't expecting much of a gain from this, just wanted to verify that > it's not making things worse. So looks good to me. Hi Heikki, Thanks for trying out the patch. I see in the commitfest app it is set to "Waiting on Author" (but I don't know who "maiku41" is). Based on the comments so far, I don't know what I should be doing on it at the moment, and I thought perhaps your comment above meant it should be "ready for committer". If we think the patch has a risk of introducing subtle errors, then it probably can't be justified based on the small performance gains you saw. But if we think it has little risk, then I think it is justified simply based on cleaner code, and less confusion for people who are tracing a problematic process. If we want it to do a random escalation, it should probably look like a random escalation to the interested observer. Thanks, Jeff
