On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 7:58 PM, Denis A. Altoé Falqueto <denisfalqueto@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 2:51 PM, Felipe Contreras > <felipe.contreras@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 6:53 PM, Denis A. Altoé Falqueto >> <denisfalqueto@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 3:39 AM, Felipe Contreras >>> <felipe.contreras@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 5:17 AM, Denis A. Altoé Falqueto >>>> <denisfalqueto@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>> On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 10:35 PM, Felipe Contreras >>>>> <felipe.contreras@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm sure in due time systemd will be ready, and will have nice >>>>>> advantages, but I doubt that's the case right now. Has anybody looked >>>>>> into the CONFIG_HZ issue? I doubt that. >>>>> >>>>> Arch's stock kernel: >>>>> >>>>> $ zgrep CONFIG_HZ /proc/config.gz >>>>> # CONFIG_HZ_100 is not set >>>>> # CONFIG_HZ_250 is not set >>>>> CONFIG_HZ_300=y >>>>> # CONFIG_HZ_1000 is not set >>>>> CONFIG_HZ=300 >>>>> >>>>> Systemd is working fine enough. A counter example shoud invalidate >>>>> your argument that CONFIG_HZ is the culprit. >>>> >>>> That doesn't prove anything, your machine is not my machine. >>> >>> And you dare to call for scientific process? Your arguments are >>> general and your test universe is your machine? Oh, please. >> >> When you make a claim such as "this change won't introduce any >> regressions" the evidence of "it works in my machine" isn't *proof* of >> any kind. If you have worked in any serious project you would know >> that (as many changes work on particular machines, and break in >> others). And if you know anything of the scientific process you would >> also know that "it works in my machine" isn't *proof* of any kind; my >> machine detects neutrinos travel faster than light, is that proof of >> anything? No. And this goes back to basics of rationality: you can't >> prove a negative, so it doesn't matter how many data-points of >> something not happening you have, and all you need is a positive >> data-point to show that something does indeed exist (or at least it's >> as likely as the possibility of that data-point being in fact true). >> >> I'm not going to explain this again. Either you get it or you don't. > > This is so stupid that it's not even funny. You said that the problem > was having CONFIG_HZ=300 and systemd. I said it is not, because I also > have that situation and it works. So, your point is moot. I didn't say > you don't have a problem, but just that it may be not related to > CONFIG_HZ. I even sent you an article with ways on how to inspect the > behaviour of systemd, which was completely ignored. > > Really, arch-general is not the same as before, and _that_ is the real problem. No. You clearly don't understand how epistemology works, and I'm not going to explain it to you. My problem with CONFIG_HZ exists independently of whether you experience the problem yourself or not. Cheers. -- Felipe Contreras
