Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 03 Mar 2008 17:05:01 -0800 | From | Arjan van de Ven <> | Subject | Re: bisected boot regression post 2.6.25-rc3.. please revert |
| |
Arjan van de Ven wrote: > Linus Torvalds wrote: >> >> On Mon, 3 Mar 2008, Arjan van de Ven wrote: >>> interesting observation: if I turn the macros into inlines... the >>> difference >>> goes away. >>> >>> I'm half tempted to just do it as inline period ... any objections ? >> >> Yes, I object. I want to understand why it would matter. If this is a >> compiler bug, it's a really rather bad one. And if it's just some >> stupid bug in our pmd_bad() macro, I still want to know what the >> problem was. >> >> Can you compile both ways and look at what changed at the offending >> site (which is apparently "follow_page()")? >> >> And do you have some odd compiler version? > > it's the F9 gcc, so yeah it's really new. > > I'm staring at the disassembly and it's quite different but > follow_page() is rather large; > trying to make a smaller testcase now
sadly a more isolated testcase doesn't show the same behavior yet; so it's some fun interaction ;(
more staring at the assembly for me
| |