4 ms·
I've commented several times -- it shouldn't be too hard to find -- and I'm trying not to waste any more time on this. The better question is: why has the Linu
by brendangregg 9y ago
I've commented several times -- it shouldn't be too hard to find -- and I'm trying not to waste any more time on this.
The better question is: why has the Linux Foundation been silent about it?
If this were true -- "a decade of wasted cores", with losses of "13-24% for typical Linux workloads" (for a decade, as the title suggests) -- then companies like Netflix would have lost many millions due to our choice of Linux, and due to the Linux scheduling maintainers and community failing to identify such egregious problems. The industry as a whole -- including every device and server that runs Linux -- would have lost many BILLIONS. It would be one of the most costly failures in technology EVER.
And the Linux Foundation is silent about this? Seriously?
- bogomipz 9y ago>"I've commented several times -- it shouldn't be too hard to find -- and I'm trying not to waste any more time on this." Then why make a cryptic comment like you did? Cryptic comments kind of invite questions.
- brendangregg 9y agoI've already answered it elsewhere -- more than once -- and I'm trying not to waste any more time on it. I think the Linux Foundation is best positioned to coordinate a detailed written response. There's some extra research I did that I haven't shared yet, including, for example, when the bugs were introduced (still needs double checking): - Bug 1: Mar 2011, for Linux 2.6.38 - Bug 2: Apr 2012, for Linux 3.4 - Bug 3: Dec 2009, for Linux 2.6.32 - Bug 4: Feb 2015, for Linux 3.19 This paper was published in early 2016, with the title "A decade of wasted cores".
- thechao 9y agoAh, but they were very intense years, so they counted more than one!