Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 20 Feb 2014 10:01:38 -0700 | From | Shuah Khan <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 3.10 00/26] 3.10.31-stable review |
| |
On 02/20/2014 06:39 AM, Shuah Khan wrote: > On 02/20/2014 12:30 AM, Xishi Qiu wrote: >> On 2014/2/20 8:29, Shuah Khan wrote: >> >>> On 02/18/2014 03:46 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: >>>> This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 3.10.31 release. >>>> There are 26 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response >>>> to this one. If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please >>>> let me know. >>>> >>>> Responses should be made by Thu Feb 20 22:45:20 UTC 2014. >>>> Anything received after that time might be too late. >>>> >>>> The whole patch series can be found in one patch at: >>>> >>>> kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v3.0/stable-review/patch-3.10.31-rc1.gz >>>> and the diffstat can be found below. >>>> >>>> thanks, >>>> >>>> greg k-h >>>> >>> >>> Compile and boot tests passed on AMD system. Boot failed on Intel >>> systems. I think the following changes are the suspect, so far by >>> process of elimination - these two aren't in 3.12 and 3.13 >>> >>> # modified: mm/hugetlb.c >>> # modified: mm/memory-failure.c >>> >>> However, my strong suspect is the following: >>> >>> Xishi Qiu <qiuxishi@huawei.com> >>> mm: fix process accidentally killed by mce because of huge page >>> migration >>> >>> I don't see how this could cause problems, none the less, I will test >>> without these changes and let you know. >>> >>> >>> Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@ah.jp.nec.com> >>> mm/memory-failure.c: fix memory leak in successful soft offlining >>> >>> I will test without these changes and let you know. >>> >>> -- Shuah >>> >> >> Hi Shuah >> >> I tested on my system, it boot successfully. >> >> hardware: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2420 0 @ 1.90GHz >> OS: v3.10.30 + the two patches >> >> Thanks, >> Xishi Qiu > > Xishi, > > I tested without your patch and still see the issue. My wild guess > wasn't a good one :) I am starting git bisect now. > > -- Shuah > >
ok I have it isolated to the following patch:
Dirk Brandewie <dirk.j.brandewie@intel.com> intel_pstate: Take core C0 time into account for core busy calculation
From: Dirk Brandewie <dirk.j.brandewie@intel.com>
commit fcb6a15c2e7e76d493e6f91ea889ab40e1c643a4 upstream.
Take non-idle time into account when calculating core busy time. This ensures that intel_pstate will notice a decrease in load.
Boots just fine without this change.
-- Shuah
-- Shuah Khan Senior Linux Kernel Developer - Open Source Group Samsung Research America(Silicon Valley) shuah.kh@samsung.com | (970) 672-0658
| |