> > On Wed, 24 Jan 2024 15:29:38 +0100 Linux regression tracking (Thorsten > Leemhuis) wrote: > > >> I think that's a bad bisect. There is no reason I could understand for > > >> that change to cause a continuous or large leak, it really doesn't make > > >> any sense. Reverting it consistently helps? You're not just rewinding > > >> the tree back to that point, right? just running 6.6.9 without that > > >> patch? (sorry for being pedantic, just trying to be certain) > > > > > > Reverting just the single bisected commit continuously helps for >= > > > 6.6.9 and as well for current 6.7. > > > We cannot use any new linux kernel without reverting it due to this > > > extra memory utilization. > > > > Quick query: what's the status wrt to this regression? Looks like > > nothing happened in the past week. > > Is someone working on this? Indeed the commit in question looks > harmless but can't argue with the revert helping :S
No clue if someone is working on it, however the commit itself is a trigger of some other issue. The analysis of my colleague Igor (see previous email) shows the memory consumption is caused by queues of each ice network interface (even the unused ones). Our final fix was to lower the queues to 6 for used interfaces and 2 of unused interfaces manually.
