Re: Major regression on hackbench with SLUB (more numbers)

Ingo Molnar
2007-12-22T09:50:37Z

* David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> wrote:

> From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
> Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 23:54:13 +0100
>
> > Really, if your behavior is representative of how our SLAB allocator
> > will be maintained in the future then i'm very, very worried :-(
>
> Actually, to the contrary, I actually think Christoph responds to
> every problem I've ever reported to him about his per-cpu counters
> work and SLUB much better than most people who call themselves
> "maintainers" around here.
>
> And I say that without any reservations.
>
> He doesn't deserve the ad-hominem attacks he is getting today, because
> he does resolve every problem reported to him.
>
> The guy wrote test cases, he analyzed every problem, he wrote test
> patches, and he doesn't stop doing any of that until the issue really
> is reported as resolved by the testers.
>
> I'll take Christoph as the implementor and maintainer of anything, any
> day of the week. He rocks.

well, maybe i got unlucky, this hackbench thing being the first time i'm
exposed to a major SLUB regression. The hackbench problem was dead easy
to reproduce, i (and others) offered immediate testing of whatever test
patches, it also matched the profiles of the TPC-C regression but still
i was only offered explanations about why this workload does not matter
and how others suck because they are unable to give immediate test
feedback from millions-of-dollars test equipment that is barely able to
run our devel kernels. The regression is fixed now and i'm a happy
camper!

Christoph, i'd like to apologize for all overly harsh words i said. (and
i said quite a few :-/ )

Ingo