Re: Article in Phoronix about loss of performance in 2.6.35 release candidates

[Chris Mason <chris.mason@oracle.com>]

On Tue, Jun 01, 2010 at 08:00:39AM +0300, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 7:10 AM,  <tytso@mit.edu> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 01, 2010 at 12:19:29AM +0100, Alex Buell wrote:
> >> http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=14976
> >>
> >> Question: Why?
> >
> > One of the theories that has been advanced is that it's simply this
> > problem:
> >
> >        http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/5/22/154
> >
> > If so, it points out how idiotic Phoronix is about not being able to
> > notice udev pegging the CPU at 100% being someone bad for its
> > benchmark runs.  :-)
> >
> > OTOH, this bug has been known for over a week, and it is sort sad that
> > we haven't reverted this patch.  It looks like the conversation has
> > died, but without a fix?
> 
> It's fixed by 1eb2cbb6d5efe129 so the problem doesn't exist for 2.6.35-r1.

When I first read this email, I thought it meant the test was done
on rc1, but reading the article:

	To cut to the chase, between the 22nd and 24th of May there
	looks to be at least one commit (though perhaps multiple based
	upon the different data) within the Linus Torvalds 2.6 Git tree
	that are negatively affecting many different server/desktop
	benchmarks. We waited nearly a week to see if these regressions
	would be organically caught and addressed, but they have not
	been at least of the Linux 2.6 Git state as of 2010-05-26.

I'll give the udev fix a try w/the btrfs tests.

-chris