From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "H. Peter Anvin" Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/3] automatically skip away from broken commits Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2009 14:10:18 -0700 Message-ID: <4A2D7E3A.9060701@zytor.com> References: <20090606043853.4031.78284.chriscool@tuxfamily.org> <7vskidcf9s.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <200906070932.36913.chriscool@tuxfamily.org> <4A2CAA56.1030707@zytor.com> <7vws7n6vcf.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <4A2D337C.70203@zytor.com> <7vzlcixwue.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Christian Couder , git@vger.kernel.org, Sam Vilain , Ingo Molnar To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Jun 08 23:10:47 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1MDm7A-0006IP-MN for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Mon, 08 Jun 2009 23:10:45 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753357AbZFHVKd (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Jun 2009 17:10:33 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752348AbZFHVKd (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Jun 2009 17:10:33 -0400 Received: from terminus.zytor.com ([198.137.202.10]:54711 "EHLO terminus.zytor.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752038AbZFHVKd (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Jun 2009 17:10:33 -0400 Received: from anacreon.sc.intel.com (hpa@localhost [127.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by terminus.zytor.com (8.14.3/8.14.1) with ESMTP id n58LAI1K031560 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 8 Jun 2009 14:10:18 -0700 User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (X11/20090320) In-Reply-To: <7vzlcixwue.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.94.2/9439/Mon Jun 8 09:12:27 2009 on terminus.zytor.com X-Virus-Status: Clean Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Junio C Hamano wrote: > "H. Peter Anvin" writes: > >> The advantage of that -- and I have to admit I don't know if it will >> ever matter in practice -- is that using an actual PRNG: >> >> a) is less likely to get into pathological capture behaviors. >> b) doesn't make people think later that there is something magic to the >> arbitrary chosen numbers. > > My gut feeling agrees with you that both are likely to be true; these are > good points. > > Christian, what do you think? Note: I do believe we should keep the obvious optimization of "if there are no skip points in the plausible range, use the best point." We don't want a 39% increase in bisect time when not using skip. -hpa