Page 12 of 19 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 ... LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 185

Thread: The Huge Disaster Within The Linux 2.6.35 Kernel

  1. #111
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    1

    Default

    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.

  2. #112
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    .ca
    Posts
    406

    Default

    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.

  3. #113
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Linuxland
    Posts
    5,278

    Default

    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.

  4. #114
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    141

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by curaga View Post
    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.
    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.

    opt-in is probably better than opt-out.

  5. #115
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Linuxland
    Posts
    5,278

    Default

    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%

  6. #116
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    40

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by not.sure View Post
    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.
    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.

  7. #117
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    311

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tkjacobsen View Post
    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.
    Can you provide a reference to the reversion and the mailing thread?

  8. #118
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Connecticut,USA
    Posts
    973

    Default

    Michael, now after the bug was fixed...any improvement noted by Phoromatic yet?

  9. #119
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    5

    Default

    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.
    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.

    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".

  10. #120

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by V!NCENT View Post
    r600g wasn't merged to mesa. So scrapt these articles then?
    Bridgman and others do not add very interesting info on not released drivers?

    What else does not matter at all? All I see is nin pages full of "why did you report a development bug?"

    Can I have my WTF back now? I might need it in the future where you might comment on Mesa, KDE and Gnome development.
    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.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •