Linked by Jordan Spencer Cunningham on Fri 10th Jul 2009 23:17 UTC
Linux "The Linux 2.6.31 kernel is still under active development until it is released later this quarter, but the merge window is closed and most of the work going on is to address bugs and other regressions within this massive code-base. Some of the key additions to the Linux 2.6.31 kernel include many graphics-related advancements (merging of the TTM memory manager, Radeon kernel mode-setting, Intel DisplayPort, etc), an ALSA driver for the Creative X-Fi, initial USB 3.0 support, file-system improvements, and much more. To see how the general system performance has been impacted by the new Linux kernel that is in development, we have a few benchmarks today."
Thread beginning with comment 372910
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Any reaction?
by elvstone on Sat 11th Jul 2009 01:10 UTC
elvstone
Member since:
2005-09-08

Any reaction from the kernel devs regarding the regressions that were found? I had a brief look at LKML but couldn't find anything.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Any reaction?
by kev009 on Sat 11th Jul 2009 04:22 in reply to "Any reaction?"
kev009 Member since:
2006-11-30

Generally, Phoronix has about as much credibility as The National Inquirer. They are more interested in hits on their website than whether Linux gets faster or slower.

Real regression tests get posted to the LKML and indicate some level of competence (i.e. a syscall trace or postulate rather than some buffoon running stock benchmarking tools). Luckily, some folks at Intel run good tests from time to time.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Any reaction?
by kaiwai on Sat 11th Jul 2009 05:13 in reply to "RE: Any reaction?"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Generally, Phoronix has about as much credibility as The National Inquirer. They are more interested in hits on their website than whether Linux gets faster or slower.


That is rather harsh, I always got the impression that those from Phoronix were just enthusiasts running a website - although one has to be sceptical of any sort of benchmark because one finds that it is never mirrored in reality (in terms of performance outcomes).

Reminds me of the TPC benchmark and what a Sun engineer said about them, "they might be a great benchmark if all you intend to use your hardware for is TPC benchmarks all day".

Real regression tests get posted to the LKML and indicate some level of competence (i.e. a syscall trace or postulate rather than some buffoon running stock benchmarking tools). Luckily, some folks at Intel run good tests from time to time.


True, then there is also the question where things might have changed in the kernel but because the benchmark is badly written, it comes up as a loss of performance.

Reply Parent Score: 3