Re: 2.6.29-rc8-git5: Reported regressions from 2.6.28

Previous thread: *****CONFIRM YOUR EMAIL ACCOUNT***** by WEBMAIL SUPPORT TEAM on Saturday, March 21, 2009 - 3:16 am. (1 message)

Next thread: 2.6.29-rc8-git5: Reported regressions 2.6.27 -> 2.6.28 by Rafael J. Wysocki on Saturday, March 21, 2009 - 10:01 am. (3 messages)
From: Rafael J. Wysocki
Date: Saturday, March 21, 2009 - 9:28 am

This message contains a list of some regressions from 2.6.28, for which there
are no fixes in the mainline I know of.  If any of them have been fixed already,
please let me know.

If you know of any other unresolved regressions from 2.6.28, please let me know
either and I'll add them to the list.  Also, please let me know if any of the
entries below are invalid.

Each entry from the list will be sent additionally in an automatic reply to
this message with CCs to the people involved in reporting and handling the
issue.


Listed regressions statistics:

  Date          Total  Pending  Unresolved
  ----------------------------------------
  2009-03-21      128       29          26
  2009-03-14      124       36          32
  2009-03-03      108       33          28
  2009-02-24       95       32          24
  2009-02-14       85       33          27
  2009-02-08       82       45          36
  2009-02-04       66       51          39
  2009-01-20       38       35          27
  2009-01-11       13       13          10


Unresolved regressions
----------------------

Bug-Entry	: http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12910
Subject		: Wierd iteractions with CPUFREQ
Submitter	: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>
Date		: 2009-03-19 5:57 (3 days old)
References	: http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=123744265002098&w=4


Bug-Entry	: http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12909
Subject		: boot/kernel init duration regression from 2.6.28
Submitter	: CaT <cat@zip.com.au>
Date		: 2009-03-16 10:25 (6 days old)
References	: http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=123720083515950&w=4


Bug-Entry	: http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12908
Subject		: acpi_ex_extract_from_field -- div by zero
Submitter	: Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@gmail.com>
Date		: 2009-03-15 10:47 (7 days old)
References	: http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=123711408225013&w=4
Handled-By	: Lin Ming <ming.m.lin@intel.com>


Bug-Entry	: ...
From: Ingo Molnar
Date: Saturday, March 21, 2009 - 1:05 pm

I think this was tracked back to the effective halving of 
dirty_ratio by 1cf6e7d83 ("mm: task dirty accounting fix") and 

fix queued up for .30:

 895791d: VM, x86, PAT: add a new vm flag to track full pfnmap at mmap

first-bad-commit:

d96f94c: ACPI: Enable bit 11 in _PDC to advertise hw coord

	Ingo
--

From: Wu Fengguang
Date: Sunday, March 22, 2009 - 5:57 pm

Yes, exactly. The patch for fixing this regression is trivial.

However it may be better to revert 1cf6e7d83 for 2.6.29,
and merge 1cf6e7d83 together with this patch for 2.6.30-rc1.
This allows a larger window for testing out the possible impacts
on other workloads.
 
Thanks,
Fengguang
---
writeback: double the dirty thresholds

Enlarge default dirty ratios from 5/10 to 10/20.
This fixes [Bug #12809] iozone regression with 2.6.29-rc6.

The iozone benchmarks are performed on a 1200M file, with 8GB ram.

iozone -i 0 -i 1 -i 2 -i 3 -i 4 -r 4k -s 64k -s 512m -s 1200m -b tmp.xls
iozone -B -r 4k -s 64k -s 512m -s 1200m -b tmp.xls

The performance regression is triggered by commit 1cf6e7d83bf3(mm: task
dirty accounting fix), which makes more correct/thorough dirty accounting.

The default 5/10 dirty ratios were picked (a) with the old dirty
logic and (b) largely at random and (c) designed to be aggressive. In
particular, that (a) means that having fixed some of the dirty accounting,
maybe the real bug is now that it was always too aggressive, just hidden
by an accounting issue.

The enlarged 10/20 dirty ratios are just about enough to fix the regression.

Cc: Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Reported-by: "Lin, Ming M" <ming.m.lin@intel.com>
Tested-by: "Lin, Ming M" <ming.m.lin@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
---
 mm/page-writeback.c |    4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

--- mm.orig/mm/page-writeback.c
+++ mm/mm/page-writeback.c
@@ -66,7 +66,7 @@ static inline long sync_writeback_pages(
 /*
  * Start background writeback (via pdflush) at this percentage
  */
-int dirty_background_ratio = 5;
+int dirty_background_ratio = 10;
 
 /*
  * dirty_background_bytes starts at 0 (disabled) so that it is a function of
@@ -83,7 +83,7 @@ int vm_highmem_is_dirtyable;
 /*
  * The generator of dirty data starts writeback at this ...
From: Linus Torvalds
Date: Monday, March 23, 2009 - 9:23 am

I was planning on applying that patch only after 2.6.29 is out, and then 
if there are no surprising side effects and nobody complains, we'd then 
back-port it into stable.

		Linus
--

Previous thread: *****CONFIRM YOUR EMAIL ACCOUNT***** by WEBMAIL SUPPORT TEAM on Saturday, March 21, 2009 - 3:16 am. (1 message)

Next thread: 2.6.29-rc8-git5: Reported regressions 2.6.27 -> 2.6.28 by Rafael J. Wysocki on Saturday, March 21, 2009 - 10:01 am. (3 messages)