On 26.02.24 10:51, Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis) wrote:
> On 26.02.24 10:24, Mathias Nyman wrote:
>> On 26.2.2024 7.45, Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis) wrote:
>>> On 21.02.24 14:44, Mathias Nyman wrote:
>>>> On 21.2.2024 1.43, Randy Dunlap wrote:
>>>>> On 2/20/24 15:41, Randy Dunlap wrote:
>>>>>> {+ tglx]
>>>>>> On 2/20/24 15:19, Mikhail Gavrilov wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 2:41 PM Mikhail Gavrilov
>>>>>>> <mikhail.v.gavrilov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>> I spotted network performance regression and it turned out, this was
>>>>>>> due to the network card getting other interrupt. It is a side effect
>>>>>>> of commit 57e153dfd0e7a080373fe5853c5609443d97fa5a.
>>>>>> That's a merge commit (AFAIK, maybe not so much). The commit in
>>>>>> mainline is:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> commit f977f4c9301c
>>>>>> Author: Niklas Neronin <niklas.neronin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>> Date: Fri Dec 1 17:06:40 2023 +0200
>>>>>>
>>>>>> xhci: add handler for only one interrupt line
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Installing irqbalance daemon did not help. Maybe someone experienced
>>>>>>> such a problem?
>> This isn't really about those usb xhci patches.
>> This is about which interrupt gets assigned to which CPU.
> I know, but from my understanding of Linus expectations wrt to handling
> regressions it does not matter much if a bug existed earlier or
> somewhere else: what counts is the commit that exposed the problem.
TWIMC, I mentioned this twice in mails to Linus, he didn't get involved,
so I assume things are fine the way they are for him. And then it's of
course totally fine for me, too. :-D
Thx again for all your help and sorry for causing trouble, but in my
line of work these "might or might not be a regression from Linus
viewpoint" sometimes happen.
Ciao, Thorsten
#regzbot resolve: apparently not a regression from Linus viewpoint
