Re: stable? quality assurance?

Martin Steigerwald
2010-07-12T19:56:28Z

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 12427 bytes --]

Am Montag 12 Juli 2010 schrieb Willy Tarreau:
> Hi Martin,

Hi Willy,

for now I downgraded to 2.6.33.2 and started a compile of 2.6.33.6. I hit
yet another bug, but thats a TuxOnIce one (nevertheless reported at
bugzilla.kernel.org at #15873). And after booting again after the resume
did not work, the machine just locked up again while just playing an avi
file from photo sd card - I *think* that dubious freeze bug I mentioned
before. Since I am holding a Linux training this week I just decide to
downgrade now. Again I didn't try to SSH into the machine, but it was
after eight o clock after a long work day, its really hot here and I just
couldn't stand doing any collecting information about the bug work that
might have easily taken two or more hours. Actually I also do not know
what to do with such a random freeze bug? How to best approach it without
sinking insane amounts of time into it?

The last freeze bug I had was with my ThinkPad T23 when plugging in and
later removing the eSATA PCMCIA card. It worked for quite some kernel
versions, but since a certain version it just started to freeze on
removal. Upto 2.6.33 where I last tried I think. And there I had at least
found on what situation it happens.

What do I do with such bugs? Back then I just decided to not use the eSATA
PCMCIA card in that ThinkPad T23 again, which isn't that unreasonable I
think. I didn't even report, which granted might be the reason that its
not yet fixed.

I am willing to do some testing, but I also like to use Linux. And above a
certain amount its just too much for me. Frankly said for me its all
happening too fast. I experienced it with some KDE 4 versions - later ones
like 4.3 and 4.4! - where I reported so many bug I easily stumpled upon
that at some time I just gave up reporting anything. Sure I wanted Radeon
DRM KMS. Its great. But I really hope things will be more stable again
soon. A new feature is great - when it works. That said, I am not sure
whether the recent freeze bug on my ThinkPad T42 is related to Radeon DRM.

I think I wait for 2.6.34.2 or .3 and then try again. If it then happens
again, hopefully in a moment where I have nerve to deal with such bugs, I
fire up my second notebook and try to SSH into the machine. If that works I
at least could look into dmesg and X.org logs.

Thats what I meant: For me personally the balance is lost. The kernel does
not have to be perfect, but I am experiencing just too many issues
including quite nasty ones at the moment. 2.6.33.2 with userspace software
suspend was stable, or 2.6.32 with TuxOnIce. Thus I am trying 2.6.33.6.

> On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 05:43:56PM +0200, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
> > > Among the things he explained, I remember that one of primary
> > > concern was the inability to slow down development. I mean, if he
> > > waits 2 more weeks for things to stabilize, then there will be two
> > > more weeks of crap^H^H^H^Hdevelopment merged in next merge window,
> > > so in fact this will just shift dates and not quality.
> >
> > Would it make that much of a difference? Linus could still say no to
> > obvious crap, couldn't he?
>
> It's not "obvious" crap, it's that the developers will simply have
> advanced two more weeks ahead of their schedule, so their merge will
> be larger as it will contain some parts that ought to be in next
> release should the kernel be release earlier. And it will not be
> possible to delay merging because among them there's always the killer
> feature everybody wants. This is the reason for the strict merge
> window.

Hmmm, it could also be used as two more weeks for testing the new stuff
that should go on, but that might just be wishful thinking...

Is the Linux kernel development really in balance with feature work and
stabilization work? Currently at least from my personal perception it is
not. Development goes that fast - can you all cope with that speed? Maybe
its just time to *slow it down* a bit? Does it really scale? I am
overwhelmed. Several times I just had enough of it. Others had other
experiences. So it might just be me having lots of bad luck. What are
experiences of others?

Actually I think a bit more shift to quality work couldn't harm.

> > > There are also some regressions that get merged with every
> > > pre-release. Thus, assuming he would wait for one more pre-release
> > > to merge the fixes you spotted, 2 or 3 more would appear, so
> > > there's a point where it must be decided when to release.
> >
> > Some sort of classifying bugs could help here I think. Something that
> > helps Linus to decide whether it is worth to do another release
> > candidate round or not.
>
> Maybe sometimes that could indeed help, but that must not be done too
> often, otherwise releases slip and patches get even bigger.
>
> (...)
>
> > I do
> > think that the Radeon KMS does not work after resume bug (#15969)
> > does qualify since it causes loss of data handled by the current X
> > session(s) - sure I normally save my stuff before hibernating,
> > but... And it actually had a patch that has been tested!
>
> Then the problem should be checked on this side : why this patch didn't
> get merged in time ? Maybe the maintainer needed more time to recheck
> it, maybe he was on holiday, maybe he was ill on the wrong day, maybe
> he had already merged tons of fixes and preferred to get this one for
> next time, ... But even if there are fixes pending, this should not be
> a reason to *delay* releases, otherwise we go back to the problem
> above, with also the problem of new regressions reported with tested
> fixes available...
>
> (...)

Well it should only be done for major regressions I think. I still think
some sorting in the regression list regarding importance and tested patch
availability could help. I think that the Radeon DRM fix was quite a low
hanging fruit.

> > Maybe an approach would be to dynamically generate the list from all
> > bug reports marked for 2.6.34 versions and have it posted to kernel
> > mailing list after every rc. This way bug #15969 would at least have
> > been in the list of known regressions.
>
> In fact, Rafael regularly emits this list, and the respective
> maintainers are informed. That means to me that there's little hope
> that you'll get the maintainers to merge and send a fix they did not
> manage to do. What *could* be improved though would be if Linus
> publically states the deadline for last fixes, as Greg does with the
> stable branch. That can give hopes to some of them to finish a little
> merge work in time instead of considering it's too late.

Hmmm, I did not find any regression list after 2.6.34-rc5 but before 2.6.35
on kernel mailing list here. And the bug and fix was with rc7. If the list
would be generated right after every rc? I wouldn't want to demand of
anyone to do it that often, but with some automation and a team of people
triaging and collecting regressions...

> > Bugzilla severity and priority fields or something similar could be
> > used to set the importance of a bug report and the regression list
> > could be sorted by importance. One important criterion also would be
> > whether someone could confirm it, reproduce it. Even when I reported
> > those desktop freezes, unless someone confirmed them it might just
> > happen for me. Well a "confirm" or vote button might be good, so
> > that the amount of confirmations could be counted.
>
> Maybe that could help, but it will not necessarily be the best
> solution. Keep in mind that some issues may be more important but
> still reported only by one user. If one reports FS corruption, you
> certainly don't want to wait for a few other ones to confirm the bug
> for instance. Security issues don't need counting either.

Okay, granted. It would just be a indication.

But a complete or desktop freeze bug could lead to huge data loss, too,
depending on when the user saved his data the last time. Thus is it that
much more unimportant.

> > > It's not really advisable to call dot-0 releases "unstable" because
> > > it will only result in shifting the adoption point between the user
> > > classes above. We need to have enthousiasts who proudly say "hey
> > > look, dot-0 and it's already rock solid". We've all seen some of
> > > them and they're the ones who help reporting issues that get fixed
> > > in the next stable release.
> >
> > I do think the claim should be honest. "stable" IMHO is not, at least
> > from a user's point of view. "unstable" isn't either, cause a dot-0
> > kernel is not guarenteed to be unstable ;). So I agree with the
> > major release kernel approach from Rafael.
>
> But it's also the starting point of the stable branch. And what about
> the -stable branch itself. Sometimes an awful bug will prevent the
> kernel from even booting for most users, and a single patch will be
> present in the stable branch to fix this early. Same if a major
> security issue gets discovered at the time of release, it's possible
> that the stable branch only contains one patch. That does not qualify
> it for more stable than the main branch either, eventhough it's called
> "stable". Maybe we should indicate on www.kernel.org that a new
> release has generally received little testing but should be good
> enough for experienced users to test it, and that stable releases
> before .3-.4 are not recommended for general use.

I thought about calling it a "major kernel release" or something like that
from dot-0 and then after stable patches settle - but on what criterion to
decide that? - "stable". Just .3 or .4? Or when there have been some dot
releases with few patches? But then what if Greg just takes a bit longer
to make the next one and it just contains more patches due to that reason?

> > But beyond that, I do think its worth thinking about ways to improve
> > the process of ensuring as much stability as sensibly possible. A
> > dot-0 kernel won't be error-free - but I find just claiming the
> > current process as "the best we can have" not actually satisfying.
> > And I do think it can be improved upon. I do not do kernel
> > development, but I am willing to help with collecting information
> > about the current state of the kernel, help with bug triaging as
> > good as I can and manage to take time. I do have some experience
> > with quality management as I coordinated the betatest of some
> > AmigaOS versions, but then this has been in a closed group. Here
> > its a different scale and I believe it needs somewhat different
> > approaches.
>
> In fact, I think we're at a point where the development process scales
> linearly with every brain and every pair of eyeballs. There are two
> orthogonal axes to scale, one on the quality and one on the quantity.
> Both are required, but the time spent on one is not spent on the other
> one. Customers want quantity (features) and expect implicit quality.

Don't customers also want stability? I certainly want it. And many people
running servers too in my experience.

> It is possible for some people to bring a lot of added value, a lot
> more than they would through their share of brain time on code. This is
> the case for Rafael and Greg who noticeably enhance quality, but it's
> not limited to them too. Code reviews, bug reviews, -next branch,
> etc... are all geared towards quality. But one thing is sure, there
> are far less people working on quality than there are working on
> features, so I think that if you want to help, there is possibly a way
> to noticeably improve quality with one more guy there, though you have
> to find how to efficiently spend that time !

Yes, and I didn't find that yet. I am not in a state where I can just read
kernel code and actually understand what it does. Where I might be able to
start helping with his collecting and categorizing bug and regression
information, bug triaging and stuff. For some bugs at least. I think there
are bugs where I just do not understand enough to do anything helpful.

Last post for today. Enough of computing.

Ciao,
--
Martin 'Helios' Steigerwald - http://www.Lichtvoll.de
GPG: 03B0 0D6C 0040 0710 4AFA B82F 991B EAAC A599 84C7

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]