In article <Pine.LNX.4.20.0109290937510.18362-100000@otter.mbay.net> you wrote:
> One aspect that bothers me is the absence of a success criteria.
I disagree here. Red Hat uses "must pass the cerberus test" as one of the
criteria for kernels. The are other similar criteria, most are obvious (must
boot :). All other distributions have similar tests and a few even use the
cerberus testsuite as well.
Maybe your problem is "absence of tests before Linus releases", well
even that isn't fully true as distros run these tests on -pre kernels as
well (or -ac kernels, which are mostly in sync with -pre kernels)...
> The current competition for best VM is a good example. The fact is that
> every operating system will fail with a high enough load. The best you can
> hope for is a better degradation then the prior release.
There are a few basic creteria here as well, and 2.4.10 fails on some of
them so far:
1) Must not kill processes as long as there is plenty of swap
or (possibly dirty) cache memory
2) Must not deadlock (as that is a code-bug)
3) Must not livelock without any progress
Note that no 2.4 kernel so far really achieves 1) in the presence of
highmem; the obvious deadlocks are just pushed further by tuning.
> At the moment both 2.4.10 and 2.4.9-ac16 are better then 2.2.19. But
> people keep testing under higher and higher loads and (surprise) they both
> fail... initiating a search for better degradation logic.
2.4.10 isn't better than 2.2.19 given the criteria above. 2.4.10aa2 might
be though... and 2.4.9acX+Rik's patches are solid in testing.
Greetings,
Arjan van de Ven
-
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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Sep 30 2001 - 21:01:09 EST