[lkml]   [2007]   [Dec]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Major regression on hackbench with SLUB (more numbers)

    * David Miller <> wrote:

    > From: Ingo Molnar <>
    > 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

    Christoph, i'd like to apologize for all overly harsh words i said. (and
    i said quite a few :-/ )


     \ /
      Last update: 2007-12-22 10:53    [W:0.021 / U:5.380 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site