If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Why not bind the kernel tracker to handle these automatically?
if regression found & over x %, wait y days, if still there, bisect, and email whoever is to blame.
Not a bad idea. Devs might not want impersonal, possibly unwanted, automatically generated messages though. They're less likely to pay attention to such messages - especially those who might not know about Phoronix. Better would be simply for kernel devs to pay attention to the service if they find it useful/valuable.
At least we made >10k views and lots of $$$ for phoronix. Maybe they should hire a kernel or xorg developer to provide insider info for better quality articles.
Or perhaps one company whose business is based on Linux could contract Phoronix/sponsor Phoromatic and/or have someone actually watch the results and handle such regressions. You know, for better quality kernels.
As we have already shown before, using the Phoronix Test Suite and its components we can also narrow down to the individual commit(s) that introduced these serious performance issues by layering the Phoronix Test Suite's automated support atop the git-bisect command to automatically traverse the tree and perform tests at each step of the process. We may do so again in this instance -- time or incentive permitting -- to track down this newest problem. Alternatively, you can too since the Phoronix Test Suite is indeed open-source. It is already can be as simple as installing a kernel prior to 2010-05-20, a post-2010-05-22 kernel, and then running a command like phoronix-test-suite benchmark hmmer.
So, where's the offending commit pinpointed? I'm not even a kernel developer, and I would have been interested in reading the attached changelog.
Also, finding such commit would have made much more impact, specially if sent to mailing list -- "so there I have this commit, when I merge it applications X, Y and Z are 50% slower. Explain that to me.".
The answer to that can't be "Ubuntu's bloatness is to blame".
r600g wasn't merged to mesa. So scrapt these articles then?
Bridgman and others do not add very interesting info on not released drivers?
What else does not matter at all? All I see is nin pages full of "why did you report a development bug?"
Can I have my WTF back now? I might need it in the future where you might comment on Mesa, KDE and Gnome development.
The strange and funny thing is you're according to some other articles. You sound very sad also :> You shoud rather say: "why didn't you report a development bug". Btw. some people who're talking about Linux development model have no idea about it. There are no more "stable" releases (you can call, and they're called stable at kernel.org etc, but it's a different thing). Those are distros which should take a proper kernel. All this bitching about Linux development model which scares some people is plain stupid and it's very succesfull.