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

[Christoph Lameter <clameter@sgi.com>]

On Fri, 21 Dec 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote:

> I'm really getting worried that you are apparently incapable of grasping 
> such _SIMPLE_ concepts. Who the heck cares whether you put in zeros or 
> whatever else in some of the fields? People use it to know how many 
> objects are allocated and sure SLUB knows that count, sheesh. How on 
> earth can you come up with a lame excuse like that? You dont like the 
> 'SLAB' portion of the name perhaps? Is it NIH again?

NIH? I wrote major portions of SLAB. I would be hating my own product.
Could you get the facts straight at some point? This is getting weird.

> Really, if your behavior is representative of how our SLAB allocator 
> will be maintained in the future then i'm very, very worried :-( You 
> ignore and downplay clear-cut regressions, you insult and attack 
> testers, you are incredibly stupid about user ABIs (or pretend to be so) 
> and you distort and mislead all the way. What will you be able to do in 
> the much less clear-cut cases??

I analyzed the issue and argued that the issues that one test showed in 
SLUB is a really special case and then you conclude that I ignore all 
regressions? I have addressed and responded to all reports of regressions 
that came to me.
--
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/