Reply With QuoteAt least we made >10k views and lots of $$$ for phoronix. Maybe they should hire a kernel or xorg developer to provide insider info for better quality articles.
Junior Member
Well, they bisected the commit and found the bug having entered the tree on May 22. According to the thread on lkml the bug has now been fixed!
Nothing to see here, move along.
Senior Member
At least we made >10k views and lots of $$$ for phoronix. Maybe they should hire a kernel or xorg developer to provide insider info for better quality articles.
Senior Member
Why not bind the kernel tracker to handle these automatically?
Something like:
if regression found & over x %, wait y days, if still there, bisect, and email whoever is to blame.
Senior Member
Not a bad idea. Devs might not want impersonal, possibly unwanted, automatically generated messages though. They're less likely to pay attention to such messages - especially those who might not know about Phoronix. Better would be simply for kernel devs to pay attention to the service if they find it useful/valuable.Originally Posted by curaga
opt-in is probably better than opt-out.
Senior Member
I'll just add that it should include positive regressions as well; I know I would like to have an email saying my patch increased XYZ by 15%
Junior Member
Or perhaps one company whose business is based on Linux could contract Phoronix/sponsor Phoromatic and/or have someone actually watch the results and handle such regressions. You know, for better quality kernels.
Phoronix Test Suite
Can you provide a reference to the reversion and the mailing thread?
Senior Member
Michael, now after the bug was fixed...any improvement noted by Phoromatic yet?
Junior Member
So, where's the offending commit pinpointed? I'm not even a kernel developer, and I would have been interested in reading the attached changelog.As we have already shown before, using the Phoronix Test Suite and its components we can also narrow down to the individual commit(s) that introduced these serious performance issues by layering the Phoronix Test Suite's automated support atop the git-bisect command to automatically traverse the tree and perform tests at each step of the process. We may do so again in this instance -- time or incentive permitting -- to track down this newest problem. Alternatively, you can too since the Phoronix Test Suite is indeed open-source. It is already can be as simple as installing a kernel prior to 2010-05-20, a post-2010-05-22 kernel, and then running a command like phoronix-test-suite benchmark hmmer.
Also, finding such commit would have made much more impact, specially if sent to mailing list -- "so there I have this commit, when I merge it applications X, Y and Z are 50% slower. Explain that to me.".
The answer to that can't be "Ubuntu's bloatness is to blame".
Senior Member
The strange and funny thing is you're according to some other articles. You sound very sad also :> You shoud rather say: "why didn't you report a development bug". Btw. some people who're talking about Linux development model have no idea about it. There are no more "stable" releases (you can call, and they're called stable at kernel.org etc, but it's a different thing). Those are distros which should take a proper kernel. All this bitching about Linux development model which scares some people is plain stupid and it's very succesfull.
