Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753285AbXJEESj (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Oct 2007 00:18:39 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750822AbXJEESc (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Oct 2007 00:18:32 -0400 Received: from mail1.webmaster.com ([216.152.64.169]:3981 "EHLO mail1.webmaster.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750811AbXJEESb (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Oct 2007 00:18:31 -0400 From: "David Schwartz" To: Cc: Subject: RE: SLUB performance regression vs SLAB Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2007 21:18:24 -0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3138 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <47057C10.5030603@redhat.com> X-Authenticated-Sender: joelkatz@webmaster.com X-Spam-Processed: mail1.webmaster.com, Thu, 04 Oct 2007 21:19:17 -0700 (not processed: message from trusted or authenticated source) X-MDRemoteIP: 206.171.168.138 X-Return-Path: davids@webmaster.com X-MDaemon-Deliver-To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Reply-To: davids@webmaster.com X-MDAV-Processed: mail1.webmaster.com, Thu, 04 Oct 2007 21:19:19 -0700 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1843 Lines: 40 > On 10/04/2007 07:39 PM, David Schwartz wrote: > > But this is just a preposterous position to put him in. If there's no > > reproduceable test case, then why should he care that one > > program he can't > > even see works badly? If you care, you fix it. > People have been trying for years to make reproducible test cases > for huge and complex workloads. It doesn't work. The tests that do > work take weeks to run and need to be carefully validated before > they can be officially released. The open source community can and > should be working on similar tests, but they will never be simple. That's true, but irrelevent. Either the test can identify a problem that applies generally, or it's doing nothing but measuring how good the system is at doing the test. If the former, it should be possible to create a simple test case once you know from the complex test where the problem is. If the latter, who cares about a supposed regression? It should be possible to identify exactly what portion of the test shows the regression the most and exactly what the system is doing during that moment. The test may be great at finding regressions, but once it finds them, they should be forever *found*. Did you follow the recent incident when iperf fout what seemed to be a significnat CFS networking regression? The only way to identify that it was a quirk in what iperf was doing was by looking at exactly what iperf was doing. The only efficient way was to look at iperf's source and see that iperf's weird yielding meant it didn't replicate typical use cases like it was supposed to. DS - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/