Re: WTF: patch "[PATCH] net_dma: simple removal" was seriously submitted to be applied to the 3.17-stable tree?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 8:57 AM, Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 07:14:20AM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 6:52 AM, Roman Gushchin <klamm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> That find by Roman discovered that even though NET_DMA was marked
>> >> broken we were still attempting to pin pages for dma offload.
>> >
>> > Not really. Actually I had NET_DMA in my config by mistake.
>>
>> Well, that is material to whether this patch should be applied.  I had
>> another report from someone stating that changing the get_user_pages()
>> call to get_user_pages_fast() improved a network performance benchmark
>> by a large margin.  We shouldn't be pinning pages at all, so with
>> those two reports I proceeded with deleting rather than mess around
>> with more surgical disabling.  Let me take a closer look and put
>> together a smaller patch for -stable.
>
> Ok, especially as your patch didn't even apply to 3.17-stable :)

So, it seems more people turn on CONFIG_BROKEN than I assumed as both
Roman's report and the bad network performance reports I have seen
should be negated by NET_DMA=n.  Sorry for the noise, -stable can
stick with "NET_DMA depends on BROKEN".

--
Dan
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe stable" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel]     [Kernel Development Newbies]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Hiking]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]