Re: More 2.4.4 benchmarks

From: Crispin Cowan (crispinat_private)
Date: Wed May 09 2001 - 11:58:36 PDT

  • Next message: jmjonesat_private: "Re: More 2.4.4 benchmarks"

    jmjonesat_private wrote:
    > On Wed, 9 May 2001, Crispin Cowan wrote:
    > > Or just ignore it for now, and see if the artifact goes away or reverses itself.
    > > Chasing cache artifacts can be a very expensive hobby :-)
    > Just ignoring it will not *necessarily* make it go away, but it may be
    > a temporary manifestation.  Let's hope the coders don't "ignore it" but
    > keep it in mind with future patches/code.
    "Just ignore it *and* see if the artifact goes away" means that yes, you do watch it.
    If it goes away with the next rev, then it's a cache artifact, and not worth worrying
    about.  It can be very difficult to show that its just a cache artifact, and one of the
    easiest ways is to just keep measuring as new releases come out.  If the artifact is not
    stable, then it is not worth chasing.
    Crispin Cowan, Ph.D.
    Chief Scientist, WireX Communications, Inc.
    Security Hardened Linux Distribution:
    linux-security-module mailing list

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Wed May 09 2001 - 11:59:22 PDT