Re: [3.16.y-ckt stable] Linux 3.16.7-ckt4 stable review

Luis Henriques
2015-01-13T19:21:28Z

On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 07:56:02PM +0100, Thomas Voegtle wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Jan 2015, Luis Henriques wrote:
>
> >On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 12:35:58AM +0100, Thomas Voegtle wrote:
> >>On Mon, 12 Jan 2015, Luis Henriques wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 09:30:45PM +0100, Thomas Voegtle wrote:
> >>>>On Mon, 12 Jan 2015, Luis Henriques wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>This is the start of the review cycle for the Linux 3.16.7-ckt4 stable kernel.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>This version contains 216 new patches, summarized below. The new patches are
> >>>>>posted as replies to this message and also available in this git branch:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>http://kernel.ubuntu.com/git?p=ubuntu/linux.git;h=linux-3.16.y-review;a=shortlog
> >>>>>
> >>>>>git://kernel.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/linux.git linux-3.16.y-review
> >>>>>
> >>>>>The review period for version 3.16.7-ckt4 will be open for the next three days.
> >>>>>To report a problem, please reply to the relevant follow-up patch message.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>For more information about the Linux 3.16.y-ckt extended stable kernel version,
> >>>>>see https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Kernel/Dev/ExtendedStable .
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>Something is wrong with drm/i915 (I guess). I had a terrible memleak on Xorg
> >>>>when using mplayer using more and more RAM, and then the system is swapping
> >>>>itself to death.
> >>>>
> >>>>I'm using a openSUSE 13.1 (x86_64) on a Baytrail J1900 (this is Intel HD
> >>>>Gen7).
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>Thank you for reporting, Thomas. Can you please confirm that this is
> >>>actually a regression in 3.16.7-ckt4 (i.e., that you can't reproduce
> >>>it in 3.16.7-ckt3)? If so, is it possible to bisecting it?
> >>
> >>
> >>3.16.7-ckt3 was fine for me.
> >>
> >>I tried to revert the drm/i915 patches in the review branch, and I got lucky
> >>with (only) reverting cb58c663d940a "drm/i915: Disallow pin ioctl completely
> >>for kms drivers".
> >>
> >>No clue, why reverting these few lines helps, but then I have no memleak.
> >>
> >>
> >> Thomas
> >>
> >
> >Thank a lot for narrowing this down, Thomas! The text in that commit
> >(upstream commit d472fcc8379c) may actually provide an hint for this
> >issue. It asks backporters to make sure they include both
> >
> >commit b45305fce5bb1abec263fcff9d81ebecd6306ede
> >Author: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
> >Date: Mon Dec 17 16:21:27 2012 +0100
> >
> > drm/i915: Implement workaround for broken CS tlb on i830/845
> >
> >and
> >
> >commit c4d69da167fa967749aeb70bc0e94a457e5d00c1
> >Author: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
> >Date: Mon Sep 8 14:25:41 2014 +0100
> >
> > drm/i915: Evict CS TLBs between batches
> >
> >For some reason, this second commit (which was tagged for stable!)
> >isn't in 3.16, and I completely missed that.
> >
> >Would you be able to verify that adding this commit (backport attached
> >bellow) fixes the issue?
>
>
> Mh, no, sorry, that doesn't fix it. Very fast memleak with /usr/bin/X.
>
> I used linux-3.16.y-review (with no reverts) + your patch from previous
> mail.
>

Thanks a lot for testing. I'll ping the patch authors and eventually
drop it from the queue. (I'll keep you on CC).

Cheers,
--
Luís