From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1762770AbXJDXtp (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Oct 2007 19:49:45 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1760250AbXJDXti (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Oct 2007 19:49:38 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:46763 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757930AbXJDXth (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Oct 2007 19:49:37 -0400 Message-ID: <47057C10.5030603@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2007 19:49:36 -0400 From: Chuck Ebbert Organization: Red Hat User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.12 (X11/20070719) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: davids@webmaster.com CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: SLUB performance regression vs SLAB References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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.