[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110416101406.GA11534@elte.hu>
Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2011 12:14:06 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Robert Richter <robert.richter@....com>,
Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
Frédéric Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] perf, x86: Fix event scheduler to solve complex
scheduling problems
* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Sat, 2011-04-16 at 11:43 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > I'd also prefer if we first had actual testcases in 'perf test' for all these
> > failures - it took an *awfully* long time to find these regressions (the event
> > scheduler code has been committed for months), while with proper testcases it
> > would only take a second to run 'perf test'.
>
> These cases only exist on AMD F15, I don't think there's many people
> with such systems around.
Well, if the trend continues we'll have more twisted constraints and more bugs
of this sort, so having a testsuite sure cannot hurt, right?
Thanks,
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists