Re: Regression from 3.4.9 to 3.4.16 "stable" kernel

2012-10-30 Thread Greg Kroah-Hartman
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 12:53:06AM -0400, Mark Lord wrote: > On 12-10-29 07:03 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 07:00:54PM -0400, Mark Lord wrote: > >> There's something else very wrong when going from 3.4.9 to 3.4.16. > >> I've done it on two machines here, one the AMD-450

Re: Regression from 3.4.9 to 3.4.16 "stable" kernel

2012-10-29 Thread Mark Lord
On 12-10-29 07:03 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 07:00:54PM -0400, Mark Lord wrote: >> There's something else very wrong when going from 3.4.9 to 3.4.16. >> I've done it on two machines here, one the AMD-450 server (64-bit), >> and the other my main notebook (Core2duo 32-bi

Re: Regression from 3.4.9 to 3.4.16 "stable" kernel

2012-10-29 Thread Yinghai Lu
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 4:03 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 07:00:54PM -0400, Mark Lord wrote: >> Both systems feel much more sluggish than usual with 3.4.16 running. >> Reverted them both back to earlier kernels (3.4.9, 3.4.4-PAE), >> and the usual responsive feel has ret

Re: Regression from 3.4.9 to 3.4.16 "stable" kernel

2012-10-29 Thread Greg Kroah-Hartman
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 07:00:54PM -0400, Mark Lord wrote: > There's something else very wrong when going from 3.4.9 to 3.4.16. > I've done it on two machines here, one the AMD-450 server (64-bit), > and the other my main notebook (Core2duo 32-bit-PAE). > > Both systems feel much more sluggish tha

Re: Regression from 3.4.9 to 3.4.16 "stable" kernel

2012-10-29 Thread Mark Lord
There's something else very wrong when going from 3.4.9 to 3.4.16. I've done it on two machines here, one the AMD-450 server (64-bit), and the other my main notebook (Core2duo 32-bit-PAE). Both systems feel much more sluggish than usual with 3.4.16 running. Reverted them both back to earlier kerne

Re: Regression from 3.4.9 to 3.4.16 "stable" kernel

2012-10-29 Thread Jacob Shin
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 09:58:23AM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 09:47:22AM -0500, Jacob Shin wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 02:40:58PM +, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > > On Mon, 2012-10-29 at 10:22 -0400, Mark Lord wrote: > > > > On 12-10-29 02:46 AM, Willy Tarreau

Re: Regression from 3.4.9 to 3.4.16 "stable" kernel

2012-10-29 Thread Greg Kroah-Hartman
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 09:47:22AM -0500, Jacob Shin wrote: > On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 02:40:58PM +, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > On Mon, 2012-10-29 at 10:22 -0400, Mark Lord wrote: > > > On 12-10-29 02:46 AM, Willy Tarreau wrote: > > > > On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 12:03:55AM -0400, Mark Lord wrote: >

Re: Regression from 3.4.9 to 3.4.16 "stable" kernel

2012-10-29 Thread Yinghai Lu
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 7:40 AM, Ben Hutchings wrote: > However I'm not sure that this loop is correct either. Yinghai, does > your version definitely iterate in increasing pfn order? If not then > the max_pfn_mapped assignment must be conditional. yes, memblock is in order. Yinghai -- To unsu

Re: Regression from 3.4.9 to 3.4.16 "stable" kernel

2012-10-29 Thread Jacob Shin
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 02:40:58PM +, Ben Hutchings wrote: > On Mon, 2012-10-29 at 10:22 -0400, Mark Lord wrote: > > On 12-10-29 02:46 AM, Willy Tarreau wrote: > > > On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 12:03:55AM -0400, Mark Lord wrote: > > >> My server here runs the 3.4.xx series of "stable" kernels. > >

Re: Regression from 3.4.9 to 3.4.16 "stable" kernel

2012-10-29 Thread Ben Hutchings
On Mon, 2012-10-29 at 10:22 -0400, Mark Lord wrote: > On 12-10-29 02:46 AM, Willy Tarreau wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 12:03:55AM -0400, Mark Lord wrote: > >> My server here runs the 3.4.xx series of "stable" kernels. > >> Until today, it was running 3.4.9. > >> Today I tried to upgrade it to

Re: Regression from 3.4.9 to 3.4.16 "stable" kernel

2012-10-29 Thread Mark Lord
On 12-10-29 10:22 AM, Mark Lord wrote: > On 12-10-29 02:46 AM, Willy Tarreau wrote: >> On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 12:03:55AM -0400, Mark Lord wrote: >>> My server here runs the 3.4.xx series of "stable" kernels. >>> Until today, it was running 3.4.9. >>> Today I tried to upgrade it to 3.4.16. >>> It h

Re: Regression from 3.4.9 to 3.4.16 "stable" kernel

2012-10-29 Thread Mark Lord
On 12-10-29 02:46 AM, Willy Tarreau wrote: > On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 12:03:55AM -0400, Mark Lord wrote: >> My server here runs the 3.4.xx series of "stable" kernels. >> Until today, it was running 3.4.9. >> Today I tried to upgrade it to 3.4.16. >> It hangs in setup.c. >> >> I've isolated the fault

Re: Regression from 3.4.9 to 3.4.16 "stable" kernel

2012-10-28 Thread Willy Tarreau
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 12:03:55AM -0400, Mark Lord wrote: > My server here runs the 3.4.xx series of "stable" kernels. > Until today, it was running 3.4.9. > Today I tried to upgrade it to 3.4.16. > It hangs in setup.c. > > I've isolated the fault down to this specific change > that was made betw

Regression from 3.4.9 to 3.4.16 "stable" kernel

2012-10-28 Thread Mark Lord
My server here runs the 3.4.xx series of "stable" kernels. Until today, it was running 3.4.9. Today I tried to upgrade it to 3.4.16. It hangs in setup.c. I've isolated the fault down to this specific change that was made between 3.4.9 and 3.4.16. Reverting this change allows the system to boot/run