Hi @kleber-souza, @chengendu
Thanks for your attention.
Allow me give my perception of the impact of fixing "bug" LP: #2003053.
The original patchset introduced *two* regressions. One, (NFS deathlock)
that hit everybody - fixed by #2009325, but the remaining one, are now
hitting those of use
Du ChengEn, I would second Jan's opinion.
This whole chain of fixes that has gone in to fix LP: #2003053, should
be rolled back. There where no heavy arguments to cherry-pick those
changes in the first place. (It is not in upstream LTS either).
Once it was discovered what kind of impact it had,
Hi Du ChengEn,
Thanks for you feedback, and understanding of our issue.
I will be watching the nfs mailing list as well, but kindly post
references to the bug here, once the bug is opened.
I support your idea, of a separate mount-option, if it is not possible
to address both issues.
Looking at
Hi Du ChengEn,
Thanks for the clarification on test kernels. I am sad, I did not get to
test your 2nd test kernel, as that would have revealed this issue
immediately.
While the changes to fix LP: #2003053, went in there to fix a "bug" - it
also created this major regression. But the bug fix just
Hi Du ChengEn,
Thanks for your efforts in making this change for this SRU cycle.
However, I can confirm that we too are facing challenges with orders of
magnitude (>10x) increases in ACCESS calls, with the newly released
kernels. Still better/differently than 5.15.0-67, but not suitable for
5 matches
Mail list logo
