Processed: reassign 1067228 to src:linux
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > reassign 1067228 src:linux Bug #1067228 [linux-image-6.6.13+bpo-amd64-unsigned] linux-image-6.6.13+bpo-amd64-unsigned: _major_ cpu performance degradation from 6.1 Bug reassigned from package 'linux-image-6.6.13+bpo-amd64-unsigned' to 'src:linux'. Ignoring request to alter found versions of bug #1067228 to the same values previously set Ignoring request to alter fixed versions of bug #1067228 to the same values previously set > thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. -- 1067228: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1067228 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Processed: Re: Bug#1065416: linux-libc-dev claims to provide linux-libc-dev-ARCH-cross, but it doesn't do that completely
Processing control commands:
> reopen -1
Bug #1065416 {Done: Bastian Blank } [linux-libc-dev]
linux-libc-dev claims to provide linux-libc-dev-ARCH-cross, but it doesn't do
that completely
Bug reopened
Ignoring request to alter fixed versions of bug #1065416 to the same values
previously set
--
1065416: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1065416
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Bug#1065416: linux-libc-dev claims to provide linux-libc-dev-ARCH-cross, but it doesn't do that completely
Control: reopen -1 On 20.03.24 21:48, Bastian Blank wrote: Hi Not a single piece of evidence of a breakage showed up within the last weeks. I'm therefor closing this bug report. Bastian, sorry for being quiet in the time of the time_t64 transitions. I am re-opening, and CCing lea...@debian.org. Independent of any technical issues, this is a hijacking of a package name. Please revert that change. Matthias
Bug#1059786: cross-toolchain-base: Migrating linux-libc-dev
Control: unmerge 1059786 Control: reassign 1059786 cross-toolchain-base Hi I'm going forward with the provided plan and will add Breaks with Linux 6.8. Regards, Bastian -- Insults are effective only where emotion is present. -- Spock, "Who Mourns for Adonais?" stardate 3468.1
Processed: Re: cross-toolchain-base: Migrating linux-libc-dev
Processing control commands:
> unmerge 1059786
Bug #1059786 {Done: Bastian Blank } [linux-libc-dev]
cross-toolchain-base: Migrating linux-libc-dev
Bug #1065416 {Done: Bastian Blank } [linux-libc-dev]
linux-libc-dev claims to provide linux-libc-dev-ARCH-cross, but it doesn't do
that completely
Disconnected #1059786 from all other report(s).
> reassign 1059786 cross-toolchain-base
Bug #1059786 {Done: Bastian Blank } [linux-libc-dev]
cross-toolchain-base: Migrating linux-libc-dev
Bug reassigned from package 'linux-libc-dev' to 'cross-toolchain-base'.
No longer marked as found in versions linux/6.7.7-1.
Ignoring request to alter fixed versions of bug #1059786 to the same values
previously set
--
1059786: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1059786
1065416: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1065416
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Bug#1065416: marked as done (linux-libc-dev claims to provide linux-libc-dev-ARCH-cross, but it doesn't do that completely)
Your message dated Wed, 20 Mar 2024 21:48:05 +0100 with message-id <20240320204805.i7qnygpujh6el...@shell.thinkmo.de> and subject line Re: Bug#1065416: linux-libc-dev claims to provide linux-libc-dev-ARCH-cross, but it doesn't do that completely has caused the Debian Bug report #1065416, regarding linux-libc-dev claims to provide linux-libc-dev-ARCH-cross, but it doesn't do that completely to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org immediately.) -- 1065416: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1065416 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems --- Begin Message --- Package: linux-libc-dev Version: 6.7.7-1 Severity: serious Tags: sid trixie linux-libc-dev claims to provide linux-libc-dev-ARCH-cross, but it doesn't do that completely Provides: linux-libc-dev-amd64-cross (= 6.7.7-1), ... However the links in /usr/DEB_HOST_GNU_TYPE/include are missing. Please stop providing the cross-packages, you don't even need a breaks, because the current cross packages continue to work. Once that is done, I'll reduce the cross packages to some symlinks. --- End Message --- --- Begin Message --- Hi Not a single piece of evidence of a breakage showed up within the last weeks. I'm therefor closing this bug report. Regards, Bastian -- You! What PLANET is this! -- McCoy, "The City on the Edge of Forever", stardate 3134.0--- End Message ---
Bug#1059786: marked as done (cross-toolchain-base: Migrating linux-libc-dev)
Your message dated Wed, 20 Mar 2024 21:48:05 +0100 with message-id <20240320204805.i7qnygpujh6el...@shell.thinkmo.de> and subject line Re: Bug#1065416: linux-libc-dev claims to provide linux-libc-dev-ARCH-cross, but it doesn't do that completely has caused the Debian Bug report #1065416, regarding cross-toolchain-base: Migrating linux-libc-dev to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org immediately.) -- 1065416: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1065416 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems --- Begin Message --- Package: cross-toolchain-base Since Linux 6.6, the linux-libc-dev package in Debian is arch-all and includes headers in the appropriate multiarch include paths for all actually existing Debian architectures. Ubuntu also plans or already did that change as well. To finish this transition (which actually does not include any file conflicts), I intend to make changes to linux-libc-dev and - add Provides to any linux-libc-dev-*-cross in 6.7, - add Breaks to any linux-libc-dev-*-cross in 6.8. So after Linux 6.7 is in Trixie, you can remove building the linux-libc-dev-*-cross packages. Regards, Bastian -- I'm a soldier, not a diplomat. I can only tell the truth. -- Kirk, "Errand of Mercy", stardate 3198.9 --- End Message --- --- Begin Message --- Hi Not a single piece of evidence of a breakage showed up within the last weeks. I'm therefor closing this bug report. Regards, Bastian -- You! What PLANET is this! -- McCoy, "The City on the Edge of Forever", stardate 3134.0--- End Message ---
Bug#1067228: linux-image-6.6.13+bpo-amd64-unsigned: _major_ cpu performance degradation from 6.1
Package: linux-image-6.6.13+bpo-amd64-unsigned Severity: important Dear Maintainer, Upgrading from bookroms 6.1 to 6.6 causes a major performance degradation. * What led up to the situation? I semi-regularly stress-test systems with linpack-xtreme-1.1.5-amd64 to see if there are thermal or stability problems. Typical output looks like this. The GFlops performance varies somewhat due to thermal issues, but is generally above 500 GFlops on this system: Size LDAAlign. Time(s)GFlops Residual Residual(norm) Check 22611 22611 4 15.171 508.0650 4.907015e-10 3.410840e-02 pass 22611 22611 4 14.935 516.0887 4.907015e-10 3.410840e-02 pass 22611 22611 4 14.978 514.6037 4.907015e-10 3.410840e-02 pass 22611 22611 4 15.260 505.0881 4.907015e-10 3.410840e-02 pass 22611 22611 4 14.669 525.4384 4.907015e-10 3.410840e-02 pass After upgrading from 6.1 to 6.6, I noticed some programs being surprisingly slow, so I run the stress test,a nd got output like this: Size LDAAlign. Time(s)GFlops Residual Residual(norm) Check 22611 22611 4 48.447 159.0972 5.357863e-10 3.724222e-02 pass As you can see, the performance is seriously degraded. Moreso, it is all over the place, sometimes it as 212 GFlops, sometimes only 44. This is on an i7-14700k, but it happens with another system using a 13700k in exactly the same way. * What exactly did you do (or not do) that was effective (or ineffective)? After some investigation, I noticed that rapl shows a power usage of about 50W instead of the more expected 200+. Turned out thermald set a power limit of 65W. Thinking this to be some bug in thermald, I disabled it and restored the power limit(s) too 300W. Unfortunately, while this increased the power usage to almost 200W, it did not improve performance at all (normal cpu power suage for linpack is up to 275W). I then tried various other things, and found that booting the old 6.1 linux kernel fixed this problem completely. Not quite believing it, I built a special initrd with linpack inside, and found it happens in there too, that is, linux-6.6 is slow, erratic, and linux-6.1 performs as expected, and this is independent of any configuration or installed software. I tried booting with no kernel arguments as well to exclude any command line arguments being the culprit, and found the same performance degradation, leaving essentially only the kernel. (my default arguments include mitigations=off, so it's not caused by any mitigation either). I also tried this on another system with a 13700K cpu, and got exactly the same results - 6.1 works fine, 6.6 only reaches 10-50% of the performance, very erratically. I do notice that processes seem to jump around widely between cpus when this happens, but that might or might not be related. * What was the outcome of this action? I did downgrade to 6.1 on all affected systems. * What outcome did you expect instead? Obviously, 6.6 should perform more or less the same as 6.1. This might not be an issue with debians kernel, as I can find a few other, similar reports affecting manjaro and arch linux, e.g. https://forum.manjaro.org/t/linux-kernel-6-6-lts-cpu-regression-on-i7-alderlake/157474/30 *** End of the template - remove these template lines *** -- System Information: Debian Release: 12.5 APT prefers stable-updates APT policy: (990, 'stable-updates'), (990, 'stable-security'), (990, 'stable'), (500, 'unstable-debug'), (500, 'testing-debug'), (500, 'oldstable-debug'), (500, 'unstable'), (500, 'testing'), (1, 'experimental-debug'), (1, 'experimental') Architecture: amd64 (x86_64) Foreign Architectures: i386, x32 Kernel: Linux 6.1.0-18-amd64 (SMP w/28 CPU threads; PREEMPT) Kernel taint flags: TAINT_PROPRIETARY_MODULE, TAINT_USER, TAINT_OOT_MODULE, TAINT_UNSIGNED_MODULE Locale: LANG=en_IE.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_IE.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8), LANGUAGE not set Shell: /bin/sh linked to /usr/bin/dash Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system) LSM: AppArmor: enabled Versions of packages linux-image-6.6.13+bpo-amd64-unsigned depends on: ii initramfs-tools [linux-initramfs-tool] 0.142 ii kmod30+20221128-1 ii linux-base 4.9 Versions of packages linux-image-6.6.13+bpo-amd64-unsigned recommends: ii apparmor 3.0.8-3 ii firmware-linux-free 20200122-1 Versions of packages linux-image-6.6.13+bpo-amd64-unsigned suggests: pn debian-kernel-handbook ii extlinux3:6.04~git20190206.bf6db5b4+dfsg1-3+b1 ii grub-efi-amd64 2.06-13+deb12u1 pn linux-doc-6.6
