Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 07:54:06 +0200
From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
To: Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org,
        Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@windriver.com>,
        Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Linux 2.6.32.61
Message-ID: <20130614055406.GA880@1wt.eu>
References: <20130610101557.GA3235@1wt.eu> <1371183115.10688.78.camel@deadeye.wl.decadent.org.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1371183115.10688.78.camel@deadeye.wl.decadent.org.uk>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1310
Lines: 37

Hi Ben,

On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 05:11:55AM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-06-10 at 12:15 +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> [...]
> > Eric Dumazet (8):
> [...]
> >       softirq: reduce latencies
> [...]
> 
> This one apparently introduces a regression, fixed in mainline by commit
> 34376a50fb1f 'Fix lockup related to stop_machine being stuck in
> __do_softirq.'
> 
> I'm a bit surprised that you picked it for 2.6.32 as it wasn't applied
> to any other branch older than 3.9.

Interesting. It was discussed on stable@ in March between Eric and Paul
about the pertinence of merging it into 2.6.32 and 2.6.34 (both CCed).
The thread was '[PATCH] net: reduce net_rx_action() latency to 2 HZ'.
It is supposed to fix a but introduced in 2.6.29 by commit 24f8b2385
(net: increase receive packet quantum).

I didn't notice that it was not in more recent versions.

Eric, do you suggest that I revert this patch or that I also include the
mainline fix above to fix the regression ? If the latter, should Paul and
Greg also take the two patches ?

Thanks,
Willy

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/