Thread (14 messages) 14 messages, 6 authors, 2012-10-30

Re: Regression from 3.4.9 to 3.4.16 "stable" kernel

From: Mark Lord <hidden>
Date: 2012-10-30 04:53:10
Also in: lkml

On 12-10-29 07:03 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 07:00:54PM -0400, Mark Lord wrote:
quoted
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
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help