Weekly edition	Kernel	Security	Distributions	Contact Us	Search
Archives	Calendar	Subscribe	Write for LWN	LWN.net FAQ	Sponsors

Tbench troubles II

Posted Nov 20, 2008 3:49 UTC (Thu) by abatters (✭ supporter ✭, #6932)
Parent article: Tbench troubles II

Will any of these improvements be merged in 2.6.27 -stable, or are performance regressions not considered important enough for -stable?

(Log in to post comments)

No way!

Posted Nov 20, 2008 7:45 UTC (Thu) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]

First: the performance regressions are not security-related at all (unless it's slowdown of 100 times or more).
Second: changes involved tend to be small but potentlially dangerous (oh, we don't need this lock, so we can drop it - but what if we are wrong? ).
Not -stable material at all.

No way!

Posted Nov 20, 2008 7:53 UTC (Thu) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]

IIRC the hrtick scheduler has been turned off in -stable already :)