From: Mark Lord <kernel@teksavvy.com>
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc: Jacob Shin <jacob.shin@amd.com>,
Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk>,
Yinghai Lu <yinghai@kernel.org>, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>,
stable@vger.kernel.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: Regression from 3.4.9 to 3.4.16 "stable" kernel
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 00:53:06 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <508F5D32.3080308@teksavvy.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20121029230337.GA22444@kroah.com>
On 12-10-29 07:03 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 07:00:54PM -0400, Mark Lord wrote:
>> There's something else very wrong when going from 3.4.9 to 3.4.16.
>> I've done it on two machines here, one the AMD-450 server (64-bit),
>> and the other my main notebook (Core2duo 32-bit-PAE).
>>
>> Both systems feel much more sluggish than usual with 3.4.16 running.
>> Reverted them both back to earlier kernels (3.4.9, 3.4.4-PAE),
>> and the usual responsive feel has returned.
>>
>> Vague, I know, but something bad happened in there somewhere.
>
> That's too vague for me to do anything with, sorry. Bisection would be
> good if you can figure out how to measure this.
Well, I'd bet Donkeys to Daises that reverting the kernel/sched.c changes
will probably fix the responsiveness, but I haven't done that yet.
I've lost enough time already debugging the other issues.
This is more just an indication that perhaps -stable patches need better review
than they're getting. Take the setup.c breakage: as soon as I pointed it out,
a few people jumped in with knowledge that it was broken, and that patches
existed to fix it.
That kind of thing should be happening before a -stable release,
though I don't know how you would get the Right People to look
at this stuff then rather than after the fact. Maybe a topic
for a future kernel summit or something.
Best wishes.
-ml
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-10-30 4:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-10-29 4:03 Regression from 3.4.9 to 3.4.16 "stable" kernel Mark Lord
2012-10-29 6:46 ` Willy Tarreau
2012-10-29 14:22 ` Mark Lord
2012-10-29 14:37 ` Mark Lord
2012-10-29 14:40 ` Ben Hutchings
2012-10-29 14:47 ` Jacob Shin
2012-10-29 16:58 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2012-10-29 17:04 ` Jacob Shin
2012-10-29 23:00 ` Mark Lord
2012-10-29 23:03 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2012-10-30 1:20 ` Yinghai Lu
2012-10-30 4:53 ` Mark Lord [this message]
2012-10-30 16:30 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2012-10-29 16:37 ` Yinghai Lu
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=508F5D32.3080308@teksavvy.com \
--to=kernel@teksavvy.com \
--cc=ben@decadent.org.uk \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=hpa@linux.intel.com \
--cc=jacob.shin@amd.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=w@1wt.eu \
--cc=yinghai@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).