[lkml]   [2001]   [Sep]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: kernel changes
In article <> you wrote:

> One aspect that bothers me is the absence of a success criteria.

I disagree here. Red Hat uses "must pass the cerberus test" as one of the
criteria for kernels. The are other similar criteria, most are obvious (must
boot :). All other distributions have similar tests and a few even use the
cerberus testsuite as well.

Maybe your problem is "absence of tests before Linus releases", well
even that isn't fully true as distros run these tests on -pre kernels as
well (or -ac kernels, which are mostly in sync with -pre kernels)...

> The current competition for best VM is a good example. The fact is that
> every operating system will fail with a high enough load. The best you can
> hope for is a better degradation then the prior release.

There are a few basic creteria here as well, and 2.4.10 fails on some of
them so far:

1) Must not kill processes as long as there is plenty of swap
or (possibly dirty) cache memory
2) Must not deadlock (as that is a code-bug)
3) Must not livelock without any progress

Note that no 2.4 kernel so far really achieves 1) in the presence of
highmem; the obvious deadlocks are just pushed further by tuning.

> At the moment both 2.4.10 and 2.4.9-ac16 are better then 2.2.19. But
> people keep testing under higher and higher loads and (surprise) they both
> fail... initiating a search for better degradation logic.

2.4.10 isn't better than 2.2.19 given the criteria above. 2.4.10aa2 might
be though... and 2.4.9acX+Rik's patches are solid in testing.

Arjan van de Ven

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:03    [W:0.091 / U:0.036 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site