This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
of regressions introduced between 2.6.27 and 2.6.28.
The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
introduced between 2.6.27 and 2.6.28. Please verify if it still should
be listed and let me know (either way
* Michael Riepe wrote:
> Disclaimer: I'm not using UML, but these problems may be related.
>
> > Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12208
> > Subject : uml is very slow on 2.6.28 host
> > Submitter : Miklos Szeredi
> > Date: 2008-12-12 9:35 (
Disclaimer: I'm not using UML, but these problems may be related.
> Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12208
> Subject : uml is very slow on 2.6.28 host
> Submitter : Miklos Szeredi
> Date : 2008-12-12 9:35 (93 days old)
> References: http://
This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
of regressions introduced between 2.6.27 and 2.6.28.
The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
introduced between 2.6.27 and 2.6.28. Please verify if it still should
be listed and let me know (either way
This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
of regressions introduced between 2.6.27 and 2.6.28.
The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
introduced between 2.6.27 and 2.6.28. Please verify if it still should
be listed and let me know (either way
This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
of regressions introduced between 2.6.27 and 2.6.28.
The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
introduced between 2.6.27 and 2.6.28. Please verify if it still should
be listed and let me know (either way
On Sun, 22 Feb 2009, =?utf-8?Q?Am=C3=A9rico?= Wang wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 14, 2009 at 09:50:19PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
> >of regressions introduced between 2.6.27 and 2.6.28.
> >
> >The following bug entry is on the curr
On Sat, Feb 14, 2009 at 09:50:19PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
>of regressions introduced between 2.6.27 and 2.6.28.
>
>The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
>introduced between 2.6.27 and 2.6.28.
This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
of regressions introduced between 2.6.27 and 2.6.28.
The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
introduced between 2.6.27 and 2.6.28. Please verify if it still should
be listed and let me know (either way
On Feb 4, 11:58am, "Rafael J. Wysocki" wrote:
} Subject: [Bug #12208] uml is very slow on 2.6.28 host
Good day to everyone.
> This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
> of regressions introduced between 2.6.27 and 2.6.28.
>
> The following bug e
This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
of regressions introduced between 2.6.27 and 2.6.28.
The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
introduced between 2.6.27 and 2.6.28. Please verify if it still should
be listed and let me know (either way
On Mon, 19 Jan 2009, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
> of regressions introduced between 2.6.27 and 2.6.28.
>
> The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
> introduced between 2.6.27 and 2.6.28. Please verify
This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
of regressions introduced between 2.6.27 and 2.6.28.
The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
introduced between 2.6.27 and 2.6.28. Please verify if it still should
be listed and let me know (either way
On Monday 12 January 2009, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Jan 2009, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
> > of regressions introduced between 2.6.27 and 2.6.28.
> >
> > The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressi
On Sun, 11 Jan 2009, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
> of regressions introduced between 2.6.27 and 2.6.28.
>
> The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
> introduced between 2.6.27 and 2.6.28. Please verify
This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
of regressions introduced between 2.6.27 and 2.6.28.
The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
introduced between 2.6.27 and 2.6.28. Please verify if it still should
be listed and let me know (either way
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 2.6.27. Please verify if it still should be listed and let me know
(either way).
Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_
* Mike Galbraith wrote:
> 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.
>
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, 16 Dec 2008, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> We definitely don't want to do that. Hm. There are only two commits
> that spring to mind...
>
> 1af5f730fc1bf7c62ec9fb2d307206e18bf40a69, which is another hope not, and
This didn't fix it either.
> 3f3a490480d8ab96e0fe30a41f80f14e6a0c579d which doe
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 there must be
> some
On Tue, 16 Dec 2008, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-12-16 at 01:49 +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> > On Sat, 13 Dec 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12208
> > > Subject : uml is very slow on 2.6.28 host
> > > Submitter : Mikl
On Tue, 2008-12-16 at 01:49 +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Dec 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12208
> > Subject : uml is very slow on 2.6.28 host
> > Submitter : Miklos Szeredi
> > Date: 2008-12-1
On Tue, 2008-12-16 at 01:49 +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Dec 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12208
> > Subject : uml is very slow on 2.6.28 host
> > Submitter : Miklos Szeredi
> > Date: 2008-12-1
On Sat, 13 Dec 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12208
> Subject : uml is very slow on 2.6.28 host
> Submitter : Miklos Szeredi
> Date : 2008-12-12 9:35 (2 days old)
> References: http://marc.info/?l=linux-ker
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 2.6.27. Please verify if it still should be listed and let me know
(either way).
Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_
26 matches
Mail list logo
