From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751842AbWF3SAk (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Jun 2006 14:00:40 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751840AbWF3SAk (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Jun 2006 14:00:40 -0400 Received: from mail.gmx.net ([213.165.64.21]:44779 "HELO mail.gmx.net") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1751842AbWF3SAh (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Jun 2006 14:00:37 -0400 X-Authenticated: #14349625 Subject: Re: Measuring tools - top and interrupts From: Mike Galbraith To: danial_thom@yahoo.com Cc: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Bj=F6rn?= Steinbrink , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20060630134149.11464.qmail@web33302.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20060630134149.11464.qmail@web33302.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 20:03:18 +0200 Message-Id: <1151690598.8395.1.camel@Homer.TheSimpsons.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.4.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 2006-06-30 at 06:41 -0700, Danial Thom wrote: > > --- Mike Galbraith wrote: > > > On Sun, 2006-06-25 at 13:45 -0700, Danial Thom > > wrote: > > > > > I think the one thing we can surmise from > > this > > > thread is that you can't rely on kernel usage > > > statistics to be accurate, as its likely that > > > there are many, many cases that don't work > > > properly. It was always wrong in 2.4 as well. > > > > Once identified, problems tend to get fixed. > > This one will probably be > > history soon. You know the old saying > > though... "There are lies, there > > are _damn_ lies, and then there are > > _statistics_". > > The usefulness of statistics is a function of the > breadth of understand of the person interpreting > them. > > But I don't think that applies here, because we > are not questioning the conclusions from the > statistics, only the accuracy of the gathering. > Its a completely different thing to say, for > example, that population growth is due to too > many babies when it might be immigration or a > reduction in the death rate, than it is to say > that the numbers gathered are simply wrong. > > The truth is that you guys can't be bothered > unless the numbers are so far off that its an > embarrasment. Hey, let's play hide and go fuck yourself. Tag, you're it. *plonk* -Mike