On Sun, 2010-03-21 at 21:30 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
> of regressions introduced between 2.6.32 and 2.6.33.
>
> The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
> introduced between 2.6.32 and 2.6.33.
gt; Submitter : Lin Ming
> Date : 2010-01-25 10:03 (56 days old)
> First-Bad-Commit:
> http://git.kernel.org/git/linus/1b9508f6831e10d53256825de8904caa22d1ca2c
> References: http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=126441481427331&w=4
> Handled-By: Mike Galbraith
&g
On Sat, 2010-02-20 at 15:52 +0800, Lin Ming wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-02-01 at 16:04 +0800, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Mon, 2010-02-01 at 01:22 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
> > > of recent re
On Mon, 2010-02-15 at 00:38 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> This message has been generated automatically as a part of a summary report
> of recent regressions.
>
> The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
> from 2.6.32. Please verify if it still should be listed and
On Mon, 2010-02-01 at 01:43 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
> of regressions introduced between 2.6.31 and 2.6.32.
>
> The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
> introduced between 2.6.31 and 2.6.32.
On Mon, 2010-02-01 at 01:22 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
> of recent regressions.
>
> The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
> from 2.6.32. Please verify if it still should be listed and let me k
On Mon, 2010-02-01 at 01:22 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
> of recent regressions.
>
> The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
> from 2.6.32. Please verify if it still should be listed and let me k
On Mon, 2010-01-11 at 21:08 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Monday 11 January 2010, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Sun, 2010-01-10 at 23:32 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
> > > of recent re
On Sun, 2010-01-10 at 23:56 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
> of regressions introduced between 2.6.31 and 2.6.32.
>
> The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
> introduced between 2.6.31 and 2.6.32.
ferences: http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=126259391411982&w=4
> Handled-By: Mike Galbraith
> Patch : http://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/70623/
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-testers" in
the body of a message
On Tue, 2009-12-29 at 16:28 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
> of regressions introduced between 2.6.31 and 2.6.32.
>
> The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
> introduced between 2.6.31 and 2.6.32.
On Fri, 2009-11-20 at 13:40 +0800, Zhang, Yanmin wrote:
> Mike's patch 1b9508f6831e10 could improve netperf loopback testing.
> The latest upstream doesn't merge it yet.
The kinda ugly thing below gives me around a 4% boost for pinned tasks.
Looking around is expensive to fast movers, some cost c
sted and let me know
> (either way).
>
>
> Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13114
> Subject : USB storage (usbstick) automount woes
> Submitter : Mike Galbraith
> Date : 2009-04-09 9:26 (8 days old)
> First-Bad-Commit:
On Tue, 2008-12-16 at 16:27 +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> Is there a way to trace what is happening in the scheduler?
Sure. Ingo has a script for gathering info (attached), if you run it,
please gzip up the output and send me a copy offline to eyeball.
There's also ftrace, but I've not tried t
On Tue, 2008-12-16 at 11:26 +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Dec 2008, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > If that commit is responsible, then it should also be very slow in pre
> > 28 kernels, where the same exists.
>
> Everything prior to 2.6.28 was fine in this respect, so
Therefore wakeup_gran is the granularity of unfairness we allow in order
> to make progress.
>
> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra
> Acked-by: Mike Galbraith
> Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar
If that commit is responsible, then it should also be
On Mon, 2008-11-17 at 11:39 -0800, David Miller wrote:
> From: Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 19:49:51 +0100
>
> >
> > * Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > 4> The place for the sock_rfree() hit looks a bit weird, and i'll
> > > investigate it now a bit more
On Thu, 2008-09-18 at 09:12 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> 1e65e841bb5584136ed6047c55cf77532afbbb55 is first bad commit
> commit 1e65e841bb5584136ed6047c55cf77532afbbb55
> Author: Mike Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Wed Sep 17 14:55:50 2008 +0200
>
> Rever
On Wed, 2008-09-17 at 15:57 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-09-17 at 16:36 +0300, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> > On Wed, 17 Sep 2008, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, 2008-09-17 at 14:49 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > >
> > > > git log --p
On Wed, 2008-09-17 at 16:47 +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> Could you please try following patch ?
>
> [PATCH] security_ops moved to read_mostly section
>
> "struct security_operations *security_ops" should be moved to read_mostly
> section in order to NOT let it share a cache line with higly modi
On Wed, 2008-09-17 at 16:36 +0300, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Sep 2008, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 2008-09-17 at 14:49 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > > git log --pretty=format:"%h: %s" 2069f45..847106f | grep -viE \
> > > 'bl
On Wed, 2008-09-17 at 14:49 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Mike Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > It looks like a potentially bogus bisection result, but _maybe_ it
> > > has relevance: changes the size of "struct security_operations",
>
On Wed, 2008-09-17 at 12:40 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Mike Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 2008-09-17 at 06:40 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2008-09-16 at 17:07 +0300, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> >
> > > > One additi
On Wed, 2008-09-17 at 06:40 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-09-16 at 17:07 +0300, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> > One additional sanity check could be to rebase security 6f0f0fd4963 on top
> > of the c142bda458a and then see if bisection among those security commits
>
On Tue, 2008-09-16 at 17:07 +0300, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Sep 2008, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 2008-09-15 at 12:44 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > > On Sun, 2008-09-14 at 21:51 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > >
> > > Since 2.6.
On Mon, 2008-09-15 at 12:44 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Sun, 2008-09-14 at 21:51 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Sun, 2008-09-14 at 09:18 -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > > Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > > > Numbers from my Q6600 Aldi superma
26 matches
Mail list logo
