lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Apr]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [lkp-robot] [mm/cma] 2b0f904a5a: fio.read_bw_MBps -16.1% regression
Hello,
sorry for bothering you.

2018-01-09 16:16 GMT+09:00 Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>:
> On Sat, Jan 06, 2018 at 05:26:31PM +0800, Ye Xiaolong wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 01/03, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
>> >Hello!
>> >
>> >On Tue, Jan 02, 2018 at 02:35:28PM +0800, kernel test robot wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Greeting,
>> >>
>> >> FYI, we noticed a -16.1% regression of fio.read_bw_MBps due to commit:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> commit: 2b0f904a5a8781498417d67226fd12c5e56053ae ("mm/cma: manage the memory of the CMA area by using the ZONE_MOVABLE")
>> >> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git master
>> >>
>> >> in testcase: fio-basic
>> >> on test machine: 56 threads Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2695 v3 @ 2.30GHz with 256G memory
>> >> with following parameters:
>> >>
>> >> disk: 2pmem
>> >> fs: ext4
>> >> runtime: 200s
>> >> nr_task: 50%
>> >> time_based: tb
>> >> rw: randread
>> >> bs: 2M
>> >> ioengine: mmap
>> >> test_size: 200G
>> >> cpufreq_governor: performance
>> >>
>> >> test-description: Fio is a tool that will spawn a number of threads or processes doing a particular type of I/O action as specified by the user.
>> >> test-url: https://github.com/axboe/fio
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Details are as below:
>> >> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------->
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> To reproduce:
>> >>
>> >> git clone https://github.com/intel/lkp-tests.git
>> >> cd lkp-tests
>> >> bin/lkp install job.yaml # job file is attached in this email
>> >> bin/lkp run job.yaml
>> >>
>> >> =========================================================================================
>> >> bs/compiler/cpufreq_governor/disk/fs/ioengine/kconfig/nr_task/rootfs/runtime/rw/tbox_group/test_size/testcase/time_based:
>> >> 2M/gcc-7/performance/2pmem/ext4/mmap/x86_64-rhel-7.2/50%/debian-x86_64-2016-08-31.cgz/200s/randread/lkp-hsw-ep6/200G/fio-basic/tb
>> >>
>> >> commit:
>> >> f6572f9cd2 ("mm/page_alloc: don't reserve ZONE_HIGHMEM for ZONE_MOVABLE request")
>> >> 2b0f904a5a ("mm/cma: manage the memory of the CMA area by using the ZONE_MOVABLE")
>> >>
>> >> f6572f9cd248df2c 2b0f904a5a8781498417d67226
>> >> ---------------- --------------------------
>> >> %stddev %change %stddev
>> >> \ | \
>> >> 11451 -16.1% 9605 fio.read_bw_MBps
>> >> 0.29 ą 5% +0.1 0.40 ą 3% fio.latency_1000us%
>> >> 19.35 ą 5% -4.7 14.69 ą 3% fio.latency_10ms%
>> >> 7.92 ą 3% +12.2 20.15 fio.latency_20ms%
>> >> 0.05 ą 11% +0.0 0.09 ą 8% fio.latency_2ms%
>> >> 70.22 -8.9 61.36 fio.latency_4ms%
>> >> 0.29 ą 13% +0.0 0.33 ą 3% fio.latency_500us%
>> >> 0.45 ą 29% +1.0 1.45 ą 4% fio.latency_50ms%
>> >> 1.37 +0.1 1.44 fio.latency_750us%
>> >> 9792 +31.7% 12896 fio.read_clat_90%_us
>> >> 10560 +33.0% 14048 fio.read_clat_95%_us
>> >> 15376 ą 10% +46.9% 22592 fio.read_clat_99%_us
>> >> 4885 +19.2% 5825 fio.read_clat_mean_us
>> >> 5725 -16.1% 4802 fio.read_iops
>> >> 4.598e+09 -16.4% 3.845e+09 fio.time.file_system_inputs
>> >> 453153 -8.4% 415215 fio.time.involuntary_context_switches
>> >> 5.748e+08 -16.4% 4.806e+08 fio.time.major_page_faults
>> >> 1822257 +23.7% 2254706 fio.time.maximum_resident_set_size
>> >> 5089 +1.6% 5172 fio.time.system_time
>> >> 514.50 -16.3% 430.48 fio.time.user_time
>> >
>> >System time is increased and user time is decreased. On the below, there is a clue.
>> >
>> >> 24569 ą 2% +9.6% 26917 ą 2% fio.time.voluntary_context_switches
>> >> 54443725 -14.9% 46353339 interrupts.CAL:Function_call_interrupts
>> >> 0.00 ą 79% -0.0 0.00 ą 17% mpstat.cpu.iowait%
>> >> 4.45 -0.7 3.71 mpstat.cpu.usr%
>> >> 1467516 +21.3% 1779543 ą 3% meminfo.Active
>> >> 1276031 +23.7% 1578443 ą 4% meminfo.Active(file)
>> >> 25789 ą 3% -76.7% 6013 ą 4% meminfo.CmaFree
>> >> 1.296e+08 -12.6% 1.133e+08 turbostat.IRQ
>> >> 41.89 -3.4% 40.47 turbostat.RAMWatt
>> >> 17444 ą 2% -13.5% 15092 ą 3% turbostat.SMI
>> >> 10896428 -16.4% 9111830 vmstat.io.bi
>> >> 6010 -6.2% 5637 vmstat.system.cs
>> >> 317438 -12.1% 278980 vmstat.system.in
>> >> 1072892 ą 3% +21.5% 1303487 numa-meminfo.node0.Active
>> >> 978318 +21.6% 1189809 ą 2% numa-meminfo.node0.Active(file)
>> >> 222968 -25.2% 166818 numa-meminfo.node0.PageTables
>> >> 47374 ą 2% +10.6% 52402 ą 7% numa-meminfo.node0.SUnreclaim
>> >> 165213 +31.9% 217870 numa-meminfo.node1.PageTables
>> >> 222405 +10.4% 245633 ą 2% numa-meminfo.node1.SReclaimable
>> >> 102992 ą 46% -80.8% 19812 ą 38% numa-meminfo.node1.Shmem
>> >> 2.475e+08 ą 2% -24.0% 1.881e+08 numa-numastat.node0.local_node
>> >> 39371795 ą 14% +167.1% 1.052e+08 ą 2% numa-numastat.node0.numa_foreign
>> >> 2.475e+08 ą 2% -24.0% 1.881e+08 numa-numastat.node0.numa_hit
>> >> 31890417 ą 17% +40.2% 44705135 ą 8% numa-numastat.node0.numa_miss
>> >> 31899482 ą 17% +40.2% 44713255 ą 8% numa-numastat.node0.other_node
>> >> 2.566e+08 ą 2% -44.2% 1.433e+08 numa-numastat.node1.local_node
>> >> 31890417 ą 17% +40.2% 44705135 ą 8% numa-numastat.node1.numa_foreign
>> >> 2.566e+08 ą 2% -44.2% 1.433e+08 numa-numastat.node1.numa_hit
>> >> 39371795 ą 14% +167.1% 1.052e+08 ą 2% numa-numastat.node1.numa_miss
>> >> 39373660 ą 14% +167.1% 1.052e+08 ą 2% numa-numastat.node1.other_node
>> >> 6047 ą 39% -66.5% 2028 ą 63% sched_debug.cfs_rq:/.exec_clock.min
>> >> 461.37 ą 8% +64.9% 760.74 ą 20% sched_debug.cfs_rq:/.load_avg.avg
>> >> 1105 ą 13% +1389.3% 16467 ą 56% sched_debug.cfs_rq:/.load_avg.max
>> >> 408.99 ą 3% +495.0% 2433 ą 49% sched_debug.cfs_rq:/.load_avg.stddev
>> >> 28746 ą 12% -18.7% 23366 ą 14% sched_debug.cfs_rq:/.min_vruntime.min
>> >> 752426 ą 3% -12.7% 656636 ą 4% sched_debug.cpu.avg_idle.avg
>> >> 144956 ą 61% -85.4% 21174 ą 26% sched_debug.cpu.avg_idle.min
>> >> 245684 ą 11% +44.6% 355257 ą 2% sched_debug.cpu.avg_idle.stddev
>> >> 236035 ą 15% +51.8% 358264 ą 16% sched_debug.cpu.nr_switches.max
>> >> 42039 ą 22% +34.7% 56616 ą 8% sched_debug.cpu.nr_switches.stddev
>> >> 3204 ą 24% -48.1% 1663 ą 30% sched_debug.cpu.sched_count.min
>> >> 2132 ą 25% +38.7% 2957 ą 11% sched_debug.cpu.sched_count.stddev
>> >> 90.67 ą 32% -71.8% 25.58 ą 26% sched_debug.cpu.sched_goidle.min
>> >> 6467 ą 15% +22.3% 7912 ą 15% sched_debug.cpu.ttwu_count.max
>> >> 1513 ą 27% -55.7% 670.92 ą 22% sched_debug.cpu.ttwu_count.min
>> >> 1025 ą 20% +68.4% 1727 ą 9% sched_debug.cpu.ttwu_count.stddev
>> >> 1057 ą 16% -62.9% 391.85 ą 31% sched_debug.cpu.ttwu_local.min
>> >> 244876 +21.6% 297770 ą 2% numa-vmstat.node0.nr_active_file
>> >> 88.00 ą 5% +19.3% 105.00 ą 5% numa-vmstat.node0.nr_isolated_file
>> >> 55778 -25.1% 41765 numa-vmstat.node0.nr_page_table_pages
>> >> 11843 ą 2% +10.6% 13100 ą 7% numa-vmstat.node0.nr_slab_unreclaimable
>> >> 159.25 ą 42% -74.9% 40.00 ą 52% numa-vmstat.node0.nr_vmscan_immediate_reclaim
>> >> 244862 +21.6% 297739 ą 2% numa-vmstat.node0.nr_zone_active_file
>> >> 19364320 ą 19% +187.2% 55617595 ą 2% numa-vmstat.node0.numa_foreign
>> >> 268155 ą 3% +49.6% 401089 ą 4% numa-vmstat.node0.workingset_activate
>> >> 1.229e+08 -19.0% 99590617 numa-vmstat.node0.workingset_refault
>> >> 6345 ą 3% -76.5% 1489 ą 3% numa-vmstat.node1.nr_free_cma
>> >> 41335 +32.0% 54552 numa-vmstat.node1.nr_page_table_pages
>> >> 25770 ą 46% -80.8% 4956 ą 38% numa-vmstat.node1.nr_shmem
>> >> 55684 +10.4% 61475 ą 2% numa-vmstat.node1.nr_slab_reclaimable
>> >> 1.618e+08 ą 8% -47.6% 84846798 ą 17% numa-vmstat.node1.numa_hit
>> >> 1.617e+08 ą 8% -47.6% 84676284 ą 17% numa-vmstat.node1.numa_local
>> >> 19365342 ą 19% +187.2% 55620100 ą 2% numa-vmstat.node1.numa_miss
>> >> 19534837 ą 19% +185.6% 55790654 ą 2% numa-vmstat.node1.numa_other
>> >> 1.296e+08 -21.0% 1.024e+08 numa-vmstat.node1.workingset_refault
>> >> 1.832e+12 -7.5% 1.694e+12 perf-stat.branch-instructions
>> >> 0.25 -0.0 0.23 perf-stat.branch-miss-rate%
>> >> 4.666e+09 -16.0% 3.918e+09 perf-stat.branch-misses
>> >> 39.88 +1.1 40.98 perf-stat.cache-miss-rate%
>> >> 2.812e+10 -11.6% 2.485e+10 perf-stat.cache-misses
>> >> 7.051e+10 -14.0% 6.064e+10 perf-stat.cache-references
>> >> 1260521 -6.1% 1183071 perf-stat.context-switches
>> >> 1.87 +9.6% 2.05 perf-stat.cpi
>> >> 6707 ą 2% -5.2% 6359 perf-stat.cpu-migrations
>> >> 1.04 ą 11% -0.3 0.77 ą 4% perf-stat.dTLB-load-miss-rate%
>> >> 2.365e+10 ą 7% -25.9% 1.751e+10 ą 9% perf-stat.dTLB-load-misses
>> >> 1.05e+12 ą 4% -9.5% 9.497e+11 ą 2% perf-stat.dTLB-stores
>> >> 28.16 +2.2 30.35 ą 2% perf-stat.iTLB-load-miss-rate%
>> >> 2.56e+08 -10.4% 2.295e+08 perf-stat.iTLB-loads
>> >> 8.974e+12 -9.2% 8.151e+12 perf-stat.instructions
>> >> 89411 -8.8% 81529 perf-stat.instructions-per-iTLB-miss
>> >> 0.54 -8.8% 0.49 perf-stat.ipc
>> >> 5.748e+08 -16.4% 4.806e+08 perf-stat.major-faults
>> >> 52.82 +5.8 58.61 ą 2% perf-stat.node-load-miss-rate%
>> >> 7.206e+09 ą 2% -18.6% 5.867e+09 ą 3% perf-stat.node-loads
>> >> 17.96 ą 8% +15.7 33.69 ą 2% perf-stat.node-store-miss-rate%
>> >> 2.055e+09 ą 8% +65.1% 3.393e+09 ą 4% perf-stat.node-store-misses
>> >> 9.391e+09 ą 2% -28.9% 6.675e+09 perf-stat.node-stores
>> >> 5.753e+08 -16.4% 4.811e+08 perf-stat.page-faults
>> >> 305865 -16.3% 256108 proc-vmstat.allocstall_movable
>> >> 1923 ą 14% -72.1% 537.00 ą 12% proc-vmstat.allocstall_normal
>> >> 0.00 +Inf% 1577 ą 67% proc-vmstat.compact_isolated
>> >> 1005 ą 4% -65.8% 344.00 ą 7% proc-vmstat.kswapd_low_wmark_hit_quickly
>> >> 320062 +23.2% 394374 ą 4% proc-vmstat.nr_active_file
>> >> 6411 ą 2% -76.4% 1511 ą 4% proc-vmstat.nr_free_cma
>> >> 277.00 ą 12% -51.4% 134.75 ą 52% proc-vmstat.nr_vmscan_immediate_reclaim
>> >> 320049 +23.2% 394353 ą 4% proc-vmstat.nr_zone_active_file
>> >> 71262212 ą 15% +110.3% 1.499e+08 ą 3% proc-vmstat.numa_foreign
>> >> 5.042e+08 ą 2% -34.3% 3.314e+08 proc-vmstat.numa_hit
>> >> 5.041e+08 ą 2% -34.3% 3.314e+08 proc-vmstat.numa_local
>> >> 71262212 ą 15% +110.3% 1.499e+08 ą 3% proc-vmstat.numa_miss
>> >> 71273176 ą 15% +110.3% 1.499e+08 ą 3% proc-vmstat.numa_other
>> >> 1007 ą 4% -65.6% 346.25 ą 7% proc-vmstat.pageoutrun
>> >> 23070268 -16.0% 19386190 proc-vmstat.pgalloc_dma32
>> >> 5.525e+08 -16.7% 4.603e+08 proc-vmstat.pgalloc_normal
>> >> 5.753e+08 -16.4% 4.812e+08 proc-vmstat.pgfault
>> >> 5.751e+08 -16.3% 4.813e+08 proc-vmstat.pgfree
>> >> 5.748e+08 -16.4% 4.806e+08 proc-vmstat.pgmajfault
>> >> 2.299e+09 -16.4% 1.923e+09 proc-vmstat.pgpgin
>> >> 8.396e+08 -17.8% 6.901e+08 proc-vmstat.pgscan_direct
>> >> 3.018e+08 ą 2% -13.0% 2.627e+08 proc-vmstat.pgscan_kswapd
>> >> 4.1e+08 -15.1% 3.48e+08 proc-vmstat.pgsteal_direct
>> >> 1.542e+08 ą 3% -20.9% 1.22e+08 ą 3% proc-vmstat.pgsteal_kswapd
>> >> 23514 ą 4% -23.1% 18076 ą 16% proc-vmstat.slabs_scanned
>> >> 343040 ą 2% +40.3% 481253 ą 2% proc-vmstat.workingset_activate
>> >> 2.525e+08 -20.1% 2.018e+08 proc-vmstat.workingset_refault
>> >> 13.64 ą 3% -1.7 11.96 ą 2% perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.ext4_mpage_readpages.filemap_fault.ext4_filemap_fault.__do_fault.__handle_mm_fault
>> >> 11.67 ą 3% -1.4 10.29 ą 2% perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.submit_bio.ext4_mpage_readpages.filemap_fault.ext4_filemap_fault.__do_fault
>> >> 11.64 ą 3% -1.4 10.25 ą 2% perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.generic_make_request.submit_bio.ext4_mpage_readpages.filemap_fault.ext4_filemap_fault
>> >> 11.10 ą 3% -1.3 9.82 ą 2% perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.pmem_make_request.generic_make_request.submit_bio.ext4_mpage_readpages.filemap_fault
>> >> 9.21 ą 3% -1.2 8.04 ą 3% perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.pmem_do_bvec.pmem_make_request.generic_make_request.submit_bio.ext4_mpage_readpages
>> >> 27.33 ą 4% -1.0 26.35 ą 5% perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.cpu_startup_entry.start_secondary.secondary_startup_64
>> >> 27.33 ą 4% -1.0 26.35 ą 5% perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.do_idle.cpu_startup_entry.start_secondary.secondary_startup_64
>> >> 27.33 ą 4% -1.0 26.35 ą 5% perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.cpuidle_enter_state.do_idle.cpu_startup_entry.start_secondary.secondary_startup_64
>> >> 27.33 ą 4% -1.0 26.35 ą 5% perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.start_secondary.secondary_startup_64
>> >> 26.79 ą 4% -0.8 25.98 ą 5% perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.intel_idle.cpuidle_enter_state.do_idle.cpu_startup_entry.start_secondary
>> >> 27.98 ą 3% -0.8 27.22 ą 4% perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.secondary_startup_64
>> >> 5.36 ą 12% -0.6 4.76 ą 7% perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.kswapd.kthread.ret_from_fork
>> >> 5.36 ą 12% -0.6 4.76 ą 7% perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.shrink_node.kswapd.kthread.ret_from_fork
>> >> 5.30 ą 12% -0.6 4.71 ą 7% perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.shrink_inactive_list.shrink_node_memcg.shrink_node.kswapd.kthread
>> >> 5.35 ą 12% -0.6 4.76 ą 7% perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.shrink_node_memcg.shrink_node.kswapd.kthread.ret_from_fork
>> >> 5.43 ą 12% -0.5 4.88 ą 7% perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.ret_from_fork
>> >> 5.43 ą 12% -0.5 4.88 ą 7% perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.kthread.ret_from_fork
>> >> 11.04 ą 2% -0.2 10.82 ą 2% perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.shrink_page_list.shrink_inactive_list.shrink_node_memcg.shrink_node.do_try_to_free_pages
>> >> 62.44 ą 2% +1.9 64.38 perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.page_fault
>> >> 62.38 ą 2% +2.0 64.33 perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.__do_page_fault.do_page_fault.page_fault
>> >> 62.38 ą 2% +2.0 64.34 perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.do_page_fault.page_fault
>> >> 61.52 ą 2% +2.1 63.58 perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.handle_mm_fault.__do_page_fault.do_page_fault.page_fault
>> >> 61.34 ą 2% +2.1 63.44 perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.__handle_mm_fault.handle_mm_fault.__do_page_fault.do_page_fault.page_fault
>> >> 30.18 ą 3% +2.3 32.45 ą 2% perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.shrink_inactive_list.shrink_node_memcg.shrink_node.do_try_to_free_pages.try_to_free_pages
>> >> 7.98 ą 3% +2.3 10.33 ą 2% perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.add_to_page_cache_lru.filemap_fault.ext4_filemap_fault.__do_fault.__handle_mm_fault
>> >> 30.48 ą 3% +2.4 32.83 ą 2% perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.try_to_free_pages.__alloc_pages_slowpath.__alloc_pages_nodemask.filemap_fault.ext4_filemap_fault
>> >> 30.46 ą 3% +2.4 32.81 ą 2% perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.do_try_to_free_pages.try_to_free_pages.__alloc_pages_slowpath.__alloc_pages_nodemask.filemap_fault
>> >> 30.46 ą 3% +2.4 32.81 ą 2% perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.shrink_node.do_try_to_free_pages.try_to_free_pages.__alloc_pages_slowpath.__alloc_pages_nodemask
>> >> 30.37 ą 3% +2.4 32.75 ą 2% perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.shrink_node_memcg.shrink_node.do_try_to_free_pages.try_to_free_pages.__alloc_pages_slowpath
>> >> 5.58 ą 4% +2.5 8.08 ą 2% perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.__lru_cache_add.add_to_page_cache_lru.filemap_fault.ext4_filemap_fault.__do_fault
>> >> 32.88 ą 3% +2.5 35.38 ą 2% perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.__alloc_pages_nodemask.filemap_fault.ext4_filemap_fault.__do_fault.__handle_mm_fault
>> >> 5.51 ą 4% +2.5 8.02 ą 2% perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.pagevec_lru_move_fn.__lru_cache_add.add_to_page_cache_lru.filemap_fault.ext4_filemap_fault
>> >> 4.24 ą 4% +2.5 6.76 ą 2% perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp._raw_spin_lock_irqsave.pagevec_lru_move_fn.__lru_cache_add.add_to_page_cache_lru.filemap_fault
>> >> 4.18 ą 4% +2.5 6.70 ą 2% perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.native_queued_spin_lock_slowpath._raw_spin_lock_irqsave.pagevec_lru_move_fn.__lru_cache_add.add_to_page_cache_lru
>> >> 18.64 ą 3% +2.5 21.16 ą 2% perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.native_queued_spin_lock_slowpath._raw_spin_lock_irq.shrink_inactive_list.shrink_node_memcg.shrink_node
>> >> 31.65 ą 3% +2.7 34.31 ą 2% perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.__alloc_pages_slowpath.__alloc_pages_nodemask.filemap_fault.ext4_filemap_fault.__do_fault
>> >> 17.21 ą 3% +2.7 19.93 ą 2% perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp._raw_spin_lock_irq.shrink_inactive_list.shrink_node_memcg.shrink_node.do_try_to_free_pages
>> >
>> >It looks like there is more lru lock contention. It would be caused by
>> >using a movable zone for the CMA memory by this patch. In this case,
>> >reclaim for normal memory skips the lru page on the movable zone so needs
>> >more time to find enough reclaim target pages. It would increase lru lock
>> >holding time and then cause contention.
>> >
>> >Could you give me another stat 'pgskip_XXX' in /proc/vmstat to confirm
>> >my theory?
>>
>> Attached is the /proc/vmstat sample file during the test, sample interval is 1s.
>
> Thanks!
>
> pgskip_XXX is low so my theory would be wrong. The other theory is
> that numa miss is the reason of the regression. Could you test the
> same test on the system without numa? I cannot test it since I
> don't have pmem.

I may find the reason of this regression. Could you test this patch on
top of this patchset?

http://lkml.kernel.org/r/<1522913236-15776-1-git-send-email-iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>

Thanks.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-04-05 09:48    [W:0.057 / U:2.964 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site