Bug 112578
Summary: | softirq for rhel 3 update 2 | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | Red Hat Enterprise Linux 2.1 | Reporter: | sheryl sage <sheryl.sage> |
Component: | kernel | Assignee: | Rik van Riel <riel> |
Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | Brian Brock <bbrock> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | 2.1 | CC: | petrides, riel, summer, tao, tburke |
Target Milestone: | --- | Keywords: | FutureFeature |
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | i386 | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Enhancement | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2004-06-08 19:04:33 UTC | Type: | --- |
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
Embargoed: | |||
Bug Depends On: | |||
Bug Blocks: | 107563 |
Description
sheryl sage
2003-12-23 15:22:00 UTC
Sheryl, I agree to this patch. All we need to do now is get it past the other developers at Red Hat, by proving that it doesn't have a noticable performance penalty in the kind of setup that shows stack overflows with normal users. In short, we would need a setup that: 1) sometimes results in stack overflows when the benchmark is run normally 2) works fine with the patch If this setup produces pretty much identical performance with and without the stack overflow patch, it'll be hard for other engineers inside Red Hat to object to the patch. Could Veritas come back with a proposed testing/characterization scenario as Rik described above? Would be useful for Veritas to first describe how they can reproduce the scenario (hardware used, tests run, etc), then bounce that off us. The whole point of this exercise is to allay concerns of potential negative performance implications. The more convincing the scenario, the better chance of acceptance. Once you have proposed the testing scenarios, we can discuss whether it covers the concerns. If Veritas provides us this testing proposal before investing the time to do it, we can provide feedback. That way you won't end up wasting time and we later determine its insuficient testing. (Separately, we are trying to drum up testing recommendations, but since Veritas is most familiar with how to reproduce the problem, it might be beneficial for you to pose the initial test descriptions. Then we can cooperatively kick it around from there.) This got applied to one of the RHEL3 updates. Probably U2 ;) The fix was committed to the RHEL3 U2 patch pool in kernel version 2.4.21-9.15.EL, and it was released in errata RHSA-2004:188. |