Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 22 Dec 2007 10:45:00 +0100 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: Major regression on hackbench with SLUB (more numbers) |
| |
* David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> wrote:
> From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> > Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 23:54:13 +0100 > > > Really, if your behavior is representative of how our SLAB allocator > > will be maintained in the future then i'm very, very worried :-( > > Actually, to the contrary, I actually think Christoph responds to > every problem I've ever reported to him about his per-cpu counters > work and SLUB much better than most people who call themselves > "maintainers" around here. > > And I say that without any reservations. > > He doesn't deserve the ad-hominem attacks he is getting today, because > he does resolve every problem reported to him. > > The guy wrote test cases, he analyzed every problem, he wrote test > patches, and he doesn't stop doing any of that until the issue really > is reported as resolved by the testers. > > I'll take Christoph as the implementor and maintainer of anything, any > day of the week. He rocks.
well, maybe i got unlucky, this hackbench thing being the first time i'm exposed to a major SLUB regression. The hackbench problem was dead easy to reproduce, i (and others) offered immediate testing of whatever test patches, it also matched the profiles of the TPC-C regression but still i was only offered explanations about why this workload does not matter and how others suck because they are unable to give immediate test feedback from millions-of-dollars test equipment that is barely able to run our devel kernels. The regression is fixed now and i'm a happy camper!
Christoph, i'd like to apologize for all overly harsh words i said. (and i said quite a few :-/ )
Ingo
| |