Re: reiser4 plugins

From: Nick Piggin (nickpiggin_at_yahoo.com.au)
Date: 06/27/05

  • Next message: Ingo Molnar: "[patch] spinlock-debug fix" 
    Date:	Mon, 27 Jun 2005 19:46:15 +1000
To: Markus Törnqvist <mjt@nysv.org>

    Markus Törnqvist wrote:

    > I can't find the original post I'm thinking about but
    > http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/5/16/68 says essentially the same thing.

    The scheduler is being improved for better behaviour on complex
    topologies like multi core + NUMA and multi level NUMA systems.
    If Con's work had gone in first, then conversely these improvements
    would have had to wait.

    > There's also my all-time favorite, http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/3/14/4
    >

    What's wrong with that? The slowdown is due to the workload
    becoming disk bound. The reasons are still not entirely clear,
    but I don't think it is a recent (ie. 2.6) regression (or even
    a regression at all IIRC).

    > The lack of QA seems appalling here, and I'm sure Reiser has had
    > to do more of that for DARPA than most linux kernel hackers around.
    >

    And what QA would you have preferred?

    I think if you are resorting to bringing up all time favourite
    blunders when trying to justify Reiser4 being included, then
    that is a sign right there that something is fundamentally wrong
    (if not with the code, then with your line of thought0

    And note my email has nothing to do with any *real* argument for
    or against R4.

    Thanks,
    Nick

    Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

  • Next message: Ingo Molnar: "[patch] spinlock-debug fix"