[lkml]   [2008]   [Oct]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [tbench regression fixes]: digging out smelly deadmen.

On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 02:11:53AM -0700, Andrew Morton ( wrote:
> > Andrew said recently:
> > "dbench is pretty chaotic and it could be that a good change causes
> > dbench to get worse. That's happened plenty of times in the past."
> >
> > So I'm not inclined to worry too much about dbench in any way shape or
> > form.
> Well. If there is a consistent change in dbench throughput, it is
> important that we at least understand the reasons for it. But we
> don't necessarily want to optimise for dbench throughput.

Sorry, but such excuses do not deserve to be said. No matter how
ugly, wrong, unusual or whatever else you might say about some test, but
it shows the problem, which has to be fixed. There is no 'dbench tune',
there is fair number of problems, and at least several of them dbench
already helped to narrow down and precisely locate. The same regressions
were also observed in other benchmarks, originally reported before I
started this thread.

Evgeniy Polyakov

 \ /
  Last update: 2008-10-26 10:29    [W:0.108 / U:0.896 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site