Paul E. McKenney, Eric Biederman, David Miller (and/or anyone else interested):
It was brought to my attention that netns creation/execution might
have suffered scalability/performance regression after v3.8.
I would like you, or anyone interested, to review these charts/data
and check if there
? Is there a way of minimizing this ?
Thanx, Paul
No Paul, I have to thank you. Really appreciate your time.
Rafael (tinoco@canonical/~inaddy)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message
Eric,
I'll test the patch with the same testcase and let you all know.
Really appreciate everybody's efforts.
On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 5:55 PM, Eric W. Biederman
ebied...@xmission.com wrote:
Paul E. McKenney paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com writes:
On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 01:27:07PM -0500, Dave
I'm getting a kernel panic with your patch:
-- panic
-- mount_block_root
-- mount_root
-- prepare_namespace
-- kernel_init_freeable
It is giving me an unknown block device for the same config file i
used on other builds. Since my test is running on a kvm guest under a
ramdisk, i'm still checking
Ok, some misconfiguration here probably, never mind. I'll finish the
tests tomorrow, compare with existent ones and let you know asap. Tks.
On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 10:09 PM, Eric W. Biederman
ebied...@xmission.com wrote:
Rafael Tinoco rafael.tin...@canonical.com writes:
I'm getting a kernel
Okay,
Tests with the same script were done.
I'm comparing : master + patch vs 3.15.0-rc5 (last sync'ed rcu commit)
and 3.9 last bisect good.
Same tests were made. I'm comparing the following versions:
1) master + suggested patch
2) 3.15.0-rc5 (last rcu commit in my clone)
3) 3.9-rc2 (last
...
On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 9:02 PM, Eric W. Biederman
ebied...@xmission.com wrote:
Rafael Tinoco rafael.tin...@canonical.com writes:
Okay,
Tests with the same script were done.
I'm comparing : master + patch vs 3.15.0-rc5 (last sync'ed rcu commit)
and 3.9 last bisect good.
Same tests
> > kernel: 4.4.133-rc1
> > git repo:
> > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable-rc.git
> > git branch: linux-4.4.y
> > git commit: 915a3d7cdea9daa9e9fb6b855f10c1312e6910c4
> > git describe: v4.4.132-93-g915a3d7cdea9
> > Test details:
> >
confirm that it still works in
> 4.4.133
>
> Thanks,
> Daniel Sangorrin
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: stable-ow...@vger.kernel.org [mailto:stable-ow...@vger.kernel.org] On
>> Behalf Of Rafael Tinoco
>> Sent: Friday, May 25, 2018 5:32 AM
>> To:
14 June 2018 at 12:04, Greg Kroah-Hartman
>> > > >
>> > > > wrote:
>> > > > > On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 10:48:50PM -0300, Rafael Tinoco wrote:
>> > > > >> On 13 June 2018 at 18:08, Rafael David Tinoco
>> > > > >
On 12 June 2018 at 13:46, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 4.9.108 release.
> There are 31 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response
> to this one. If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please
> let me know.
>
>
Results from Linaro’s test farm.
Regressions detected.
NOTE:
1) LTP vma03 test (cve-2011-2496) broken on v4.4-137-rc1 because of:
6ea1dc96a03a mmap: relax file size limit for regular files
bd2f9ce5bacb mmap: introduce sane default mmap limits
discussion:
On 13 June 2018 at 18:08, Rafael David Tinoco
wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 6:00 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 05:47:49PM -0300, Rafael Tinoco wrote:
>>> Results from Linaro’s test farm.
>>> Regressions detected.
>>>
>&g
The following bug has been opened for LTP:
https://github.com/linux-test-project/ltp/issues/319
for the CVE-2017-5669's wrong assumptions (based on Davidlohr's work).
I'll change the test to cover both scenarios and expect the right results from
them.
> On 29 May 2018, at 04:08, Greg
Linus, Bartosz,
This was discovered during our investigations of a functional tests
regression/error:
https://bugs.linaro.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3769
Which turned out to be related to missing CONFIG_ARM{64}_MODULE_PLTS
config in our builds.
However, during investigations, we realized the
BUG: https://bugs.linaro.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3731
During Linaro's Kernel Functional tests, we have observed the
following situation:
[ 52.651490] DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON(sem->owner != ((struct task_struct *)1UL))
[ 52.651506] WARNING: CPU: 2 PID: 1457 at
./kernel/locking/rwsem.c:217
I believe the error message on boot is solved by LKML thread:
[PATCH] locking/rwsem: Fix up_read_non_owner() warning with DEBUG_RWSEMS
Looks like that is what is tainting the kernel.
On 20 June 2018 at 08:11, Naresh Kamboju wrote:
> On 20 June 2018 at 12:51, Michael Moese wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>>
On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 2:23 PM Greg Kroah-Hartman
wrote:
>
> This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 4.9.134 release.
> There are 71 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response
> to this one. If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please
> let me know.
>
>
Greg,
> > > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 4.14.72 release.
> > > There are 173 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response
> > > to this one. If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please
> > > let me know.
> > >
> > > Responses should be made by
> > Do you think we could drop this patch, for now, in a possible -rc3 for
> > v4.14.72 ? Dragonboards aren't being tested, because of this, since
> > v4.14.70. Hopefully it isn't too late for this release =).
>
> I can't "drop" it as it is already in a released kernel, 4.14.71 and
> 4.18.9. I
Paul E. McKenney, Eric Biederman, David Miller (and/or anyone else interested):
It was brought to my attention that netns creation/execution might
have suffered scalability/performance regression after v3.8.
I would like you, or anyone interested, to review these charts/data
and check if there
nly used commits that changed RCU because of the bisect
result. Besides these commits I have only generated kernel for main
release tags.
In my point of view, if this is related to RCU, several things have to be
discussed: Is using NOCB_CPU_ALL for a general purpose kernel a
good option ? Is netns cod
Eric,
I'll test the patch with the same testcase and let you all know.
Really appreciate everybody's efforts.
On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 5:55 PM, Eric W. Biederman
wrote:
> "Paul E. McKenney" writes:
>
>> On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 01:27:07PM -0500, Dave Chiluk wrote:
>>> On 06/11/2014 11:18 AM,
I'm getting a kernel panic with your patch:
-- panic
-- mount_block_root
-- mount_root
-- prepare_namespace
-- kernel_init_freeable
It is giving me an unknown block device for the same config file i
used on other builds. Since my test is running on a kvm guest under a
ramdisk, i'm still checking
Ok, some misconfiguration here probably, never mind. I'll finish the
tests tomorrow, compare with existent ones and let you know asap. Tks.
On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 10:09 PM, Eric W. Biederman
wrote:
> Rafael Tinoco writes:
>
>> I'm getting a kernel panic with your patch:
&g
Okay,
Tests with the same script were done.
I'm comparing : master + patch vs 3.15.0-rc5 (last sync'ed rcu commit)
and 3.9 last bisect good.
Same tests were made. I'm comparing the following versions:
1) master + suggested patch
2) 3.15.0-rc5 (last rcu commit in my clone)
3) 3.9-rc2 (last
...
On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 9:02 PM, Eric W. Biederman
wrote:
> Rafael Tinoco writes:
>
>> Okay,
>>
>> Tests with the same script were done.
>> I'm comparing : master + patch vs 3.15.0-rc5 (last sync'ed rcu commit)
>> and 3.9 last bisect good.
>&
I believe the error message on boot is solved by LKML thread:
[PATCH] locking/rwsem: Fix up_read_non_owner() warning with DEBUG_RWSEMS
Looks like that is what is tainting the kernel.
On 20 June 2018 at 08:11, Naresh Kamboju wrote:
> On 20 June 2018 at 12:51, Michael Moese wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>>
Linus, Bartosz,
This was discovered during our investigations of a functional tests
regression/error:
https://bugs.linaro.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3769
Which turned out to be related to missing CONFIG_ARM{64}_MODULE_PLTS
config in our builds.
However, during investigations, we realized the
> > kernel: 4.4.133-rc1
> > git repo:
> > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable-rc.git
> > git branch: linux-4.4.y
> > git commit: 915a3d7cdea9daa9e9fb6b855f10c1312e6910c4
> > git describe: v4.4.132-93-g915a3d7cdea9
> > Test details:
> >
4.4.133
>
> Thanks,
> Daniel Sangorrin
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: stable-ow...@vger.kernel.org [mailto:stable-ow...@vger.kernel.org] On
>> Behalf Of Rafael Tinoco
>> Sent: Friday, May 25, 2018 5:32 AM
>> To: Greg Kroah-Hartman
>>
On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 2:23 PM Greg Kroah-Hartman
wrote:
>
> This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 4.9.134 release.
> There are 71 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response
> to this one. If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please
> let me know.
>
>
The following bug has been opened for LTP:
https://github.com/linux-test-project/ltp/issues/319
for the CVE-2017-5669's wrong assumptions (based on Davidlohr's work).
I'll change the test to cover both scenarios and expect the right results from
them.
> On 29 May 2018, at 04:08, Greg
BUG: https://bugs.linaro.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3731
During Linaro's Kernel Functional tests, we have observed the
following situation:
[ 52.651490] DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON(sem->owner != ((struct task_struct *)1UL))
[ 52.651506] WARNING: CPU: 2 PID: 1457 at
./kernel/locking/rwsem.c:217
On 12 June 2018 at 13:46, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 4.9.108 release.
> There are 31 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response
> to this one. If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please
> let me know.
>
>
Results from Linaro’s test farm.
Regressions detected.
NOTE:
1) LTP vma03 test (cve-2011-2496) broken on v4.4-137-rc1 because of:
6ea1dc96a03a mmap: relax file size limit for regular files
bd2f9ce5bacb mmap: introduce sane default mmap limits
discussion:
On 13 June 2018 at 18:08, Rafael David Tinoco
wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 6:00 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 05:47:49PM -0300, Rafael Tinoco wrote:
>>> Results from Linaro’s test farm.
>>> Regressions detected.
>>>
>&g
14 June 2018 at 12:04, Greg Kroah-Hartman
>> > > >
>> > > > wrote:
>> > > > > On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 10:48:50PM -0300, Rafael Tinoco wrote:
>> > > > >> On 13 June 2018 at 18:08, Rafael David Tinoco
>> > > > >
Greg,
> > > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 4.14.72 release.
> > > There are 173 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response
> > > to this one. If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please
> > > let me know.
> > >
> > > Responses should be made by
> > Do you think we could drop this patch, for now, in a possible -rc3 for
> > v4.14.72 ? Dragonboards aren't being tested, because of this, since
> > v4.14.70. Hopefully it isn't too late for this release =).
>
> I can't "drop" it as it is already in a released kernel, 4.14.71 and
> 4.18.9. I
40 matches
Mail list logo
