Ok gotcha. Perhaps someone from Ubuntu side can help illuminate when
that would be available, I'm not familiar with the release cadence here.
We're certainly open to back-n-forth discussions here if this commit
doesn't fix the issue, or other issues remain, but given what we went
through on other
@Hans - thanks - our messages crossed in flight. I've cross posted the
tags where the fixing commit should live, as well as the bug ID that
brought in the fixing commit. It looks like it was brought in as normal
fit-n-finish backports, so this regression should find it self-solving
(knock on wood!)
Builds with the suspect commit as mentioned above:
jon@C02F13YVQ05N jammy % git tag --contains 34192ba1338f
Ubuntu-5.15.0-125.135
Ubuntu-5.15.0-126.136
Ubuntu-5.15.0-127.137
Ubuntu-lowlatency-5.15.0-125.135
Ubuntu-lowlatency-5.15.0-126.136
Ubuntu-lowlatency-5.15.0-127.137
Builds with what should f
Checked out the jammy source
jon@C02F13YVQ05N jammy % git clone
git://git.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-kernel/ubuntu/+source/linux/+git/jammy
jon@C02F13YVQ05N jammy % git checkout Ubuntu-5.15.0-126.136
jon@C02F13YVQ05N jammy % git log --oneline -n 1 HEAD
87cad896a075 (HEAD, tag: Ubuntu-5.15.0-126.136) U
Hey Jon from Nutanix AHV R&D here - We also see this issue on RHEL,
SLE15, and vanilla kernels. In all three of those cases, the problem
wasn't with AHV, but with a problematic set of backport that was tagged
as a CVE, but caused a GSO-based performance regression. This can be
reproduced on non-Nut
Hey Jon from Nutanix AHV R&D here - We also see this issue on RHEL,
SLE15, and vanilla kernels. In all three of those cases, the problem
wasn't with AHV, but with a problematic set of backport that was tagged
as a CVE, but caused a GSO-based performance regression. This can be
reproduced on non-Nut
6 matches
Mail list logo
