Subject : specjbb2005 and aim7 regression with 2.6.32-rc kernels Submitter : "Zhang, Yanmin" <yanmin_zhang@linux.intel.com> Date : 2009-11-06 7:38 References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=125749310413174&w=4 Notify-Also : Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de> Notify-Also : Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> Notify-Also : Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> Notify-Also : Gautham R Shenoy <ego@in.ibm.com> This entry is being used for tracking a regression from 2.6.31. Please don't close it until the problem is fixed in the mainline.
It's not resolved on core2 machines yet. The key is it will hurt Nehalem performance if we revert to old values on these schedule parameters.
On Monday 11 January 2010, Mike Galbraith wrote: > 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. Please verify if it still should > > be listed and let me know (either way). > > > > > > Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14621 > > Subject : specjbb2005 and aim7 regression with 2.6.32-rc > kernels > > Submitter : Zhang, Yanmin <yanmin_zhang@linux.intel.com> > > Date : 2009-11-06 7:38 (66 days old) > > References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=125749310413174&w=4 > > FWIW, I couldn't reproduce the aim7 regression with my one little disk, > the opposite in fact, attributable to cfq low_latency switch. > > (don't have specjbb2005, can't try to reproduce that one)
On Monday 01 February 2010, Mike Galbraith wrote: > 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. Please verify if it still should > > be listed and let me know (either way). > > Yes, it should remain open. Aim7 regression isn't reproducible here, > specjbb2005 unknown, not available to the general public.