Re: AAARGH bisection is hard (Re: [2.6.39 regression] X locks up hard right after logging in)

[Andrew Lutomirski <luto@mit.edu>]

On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 12:11 PM, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 7:56 AM, Andrew Lutomirski <luto@mit.edu> wrote:
>>
>> So what I really want is a fancy version of git bisect that makes no
>> assumptions about the relationship of good and bad commits in the
>> graph and just finds me a commit that is bad but for which all parents
>> are good or vice versa.
>
> Ehh. That's the "non-fancy" way of testing, I'm afraid: if you cannot
> make assumption about the relationship between good and bad commits,
> then you have to test _every_ commit.
>
> So yes, bisection has its problems. But they really do come from the
> fact that it's very efficient. When you have (on average) about ten
> thousand commits between releases, you have to make assumptions about
> the relationships. But once you do that, the efficiency also results
> in a certain fragility.
>
> Think of it as a compression method: it generates the smallest
> possible set of test points for you. But it's a "lossy" compression -
> you don't test everything. And it's extreme: it boils down 10k commit
> events to about 13 bisection events. If anything goes wrong (like the
> bug not being entirely repeatable, or the bug comes and goes), it will
> give the wrong answer.
>
> The good news is that _usually_ it works really well. And when the
> choice is between "works really well for 10k commits but can have
> problems" and "you need to test all 10k commits", the "can have
> problems" part turns out to be a pretty small downside ;)

In conclusion, I found the problem.  It's a clusterfuck and I think
there's no way that any bisection tool under any sane assumptions
could have found it.  Patch coming in a couple seconds b/c I think it
needs to go in to 2.6.39.

--Andy

>
>                                Linus
>