On 6/26/25 08:00, Bertrand Drouvot wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 10:32:25PM +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>> On 6/24/25 17:30, Christoph Berg wrote:
>>> Re: Tomas Vondra
>>>> If it's a reliable fix, then I guess we can do it like this. But won't
>>>> that be a performance penalty on everyone? Or does the system split the
>>>> array into 16-element chunks anyway, so this makes no difference?
>>>
>>> There's still the overhead of the syscall itself. But no idea how
>>> costly it is to have this 16-step loop in user or kernel space.
>>>
>>> We could claim that on 32-bit systems, shared_buffers would be smaller
>>> anyway, so there the overhead isn't that big. And the step size should
>>> be larger (if at all) on 64-bit.
>>>
>>>> Anyway, maybe we should start by reporting this to the kernel people. Do
>>>> you want me to do that, or shall one of you take care of that? I suppose
>>>> that'd be better, as you already wrote a fix / know the code better.
>>>
>>> Submitted: https://marc.info/?l=linux-mm&m=175077821909222&w=2
>>>
>>
>> Thanks! Now we wait ...
>
> It looks like that the bug is "confirmed" and that it will be fixed:
> https://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=175088392116841&w=2
>
Yay! I like how the first response is "you sent the patch wrong" ;-)
cheers
--
Tomas Vondra
