> On 2012.07.20 10:26 -0700, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Fri, 2012-07-20 at 12:13 -0500, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
>> > Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 2012-07-17 at 19:16 -0500, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
>>
>> >> I'm thrilled to see this regression fix for stable@, but are we really
>> >> really s
On Fri, 2012-07-20 at 12:13 -0500, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Tue, 2012-07-17 at 19:16 -0500, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
>
> >> I'm thrilled to see this regression fix for stable@, but are we really
> >> really sure that it won't cause new regressions?
> >
> > Doug Smythies
Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-07-17 at 19:16 -0500, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
>> I'm thrilled to see this regression fix for stable@, but are we really
>> really sure that it won't cause new regressions?
>
> Doug Smythies ran a ~68 hour test on it, running various synthetic loads
> of various
On Tue, 2012-07-17 at 19:16 -0500, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> I'm thrilled to see this regression fix for stable@, but are we really
> really sure that it won't cause new regressions?
Doug Smythies ran a ~68 hour test on it, running various synthetic loads
of various frequencies against it and comp
Hi,
Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> commit 5167e8d5417bf5c322a703d2927daec727ea40dd upstream.
>
> Thanks to Charles Wang for spotting the defects in the current code:
>
> - If we go idle during the sample window -- after sampling, we get a
>negative bias because we can negate our own sample.
>
>
5 matches
Mail list logo