Note: This is a public test instance of Red Hat Bugzilla. The data contained within is a snapshot of the live data so any changes you make will not be reflected in the production Bugzilla. Email is disabled so feel free to test any aspect of the site that you want. File any problems you find or give feedback at bugzilla.redhat.com.
Bug 1226316
Summary: | Enable lock elision on glibc for Fedora on POWER | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | IBM Bug Proxy <bugproxy> |
Component: | glibc | Assignee: | glibc team <glibc-bugzilla> |
Status: | CLOSED CURRENTRELEASE | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
Severity: | high | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | unspecified | ||
Version: | 26 | CC: | arjun.is, codonell, dan, fweimer, hannsj_uhl, jakub, jkachuck, jomiller, law, mnewsome, pfrankli, tulioqm |
Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | jomiller:
fedora_requires_release_note?
|
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | ppc64 | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2018-05-03 08:34:33 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: | 1071880, 1051573 |
Description
IBM Bug Proxy
2015-05-29 12:30:15 UTC
Include ppc64 and ppc64le to the macro lock_elision_arches. This will add the configure flag --enable-lock-elision. It won't affect other architectures. We need to turn this on in rawhide first, setting to rawhide and we'll fix it there. This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora 23 development cycle. Changing version to '23'. (As we did not run this process for some time, it could affect also pre-Fedora 23 development cycle bugs. We are very sorry. It will help us with cleanup during Fedora 23 End Of Life. Thank you.) More information and reason for this action is here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping/Fedora23 ------- Comment From tulioqm.com 2015-07-15 14:41 EDT------- (In reply to comment #6) > More information and reason for this action is here: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping/Fedora23 This link doesn't work. This message is a reminder that Fedora 23 is nearing its end of life. Approximately 4 (four) weeks from now Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora 23. It is Fedora's policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained. At that time this bug will be closed as EOL if it remains open with a Fedora 'version' of '23'. Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version' to a later Fedora version. Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we were not able to fix it before Fedora 23 is end of life. If you would still like to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it against a later version of Fedora, you are encouraged change the 'version' to a later Fedora version prior this bug is closed as described in the policy above. Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events. Often a more recent Fedora release includes newer upstream software that fixes bugs or makes them obsolete. Is still something blocking this? ------- Comment From sjmunroe.com 2016-12-07 10:12 EDT------- Community issues, working it. Just thinking about this out-loud, and given some discussions with Intel, I think upstream needs to change the design: * --enable-lock-elision turns on the _capability_ to use elision, but has it disabled. * Individual applications enable elision using an env var e.g. FEDORA_GLIBC_TUNABLES='elision=1'; etc. This requires some upstream work to invert the meaning, and would allow us to more easily roll this out knowing nobody would be impacted and elision would be opt-in for now. It doesn't mean we can't eventually make it opt-out as we have more experience with the deployment of the new feature. (In reply to Carlos O'Donell from comment #8) > Just thinking about this out-loud, and given some discussions with Intel, I > think upstream needs to change the design: > > * --enable-lock-elision turns on the _capability_ to use elision, but has it > disabled. > > * Individual applications enable elision using an env var e.g. > FEDORA_GLIBC_TUNABLES='elision=1'; etc. this would solve IBM request about env variable from bug 1383986, correct? > This requires some upstream work to invert the meaning, and would allow us > to more easily roll this out knowing nobody would be impacted and elision > would be opt-in for now. It doesn't mean we can't eventually make it opt-out > as we have more experience with the deployment of the new feature. (In reply to Dan Horák from comment #9) > (In reply to Carlos O'Donell from comment #8) > > Just thinking about this out-loud, and given some discussions with Intel, I > > think upstream needs to change the design: > > > > * --enable-lock-elision turns on the _capability_ to use elision, but has it > > disabled. > > > > * Individual applications enable elision using an env var e.g. > > FEDORA_GLIBC_TUNABLES='elision=1'; etc. > > this would solve IBM request about env variable from bug 1383986, correct? Yes it would. We would use the distro prefix on the env var to make the point we're carrying a private set of tunables for Fedora (it's how we expect to parse per-distro tunables setup given user requirements). (In reply to Carlos O'Donell from comment #8) > This requires some upstream work to invert the meaning, and would allow us > to more easily roll this out knowing nobody would be impacted and elision > would be opt-in for now. For the record, this patch has already been proposed: https://patchwork.sourceware.org/patch/8926/ It's waiting for the tunables framework inclusion in order to be integrated. This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora 26 development cycle. Changing version to '26'. Carlos posted a patch upstream: https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2017-05/msg00335.html This message is a reminder that Fedora 26 is nearing its end of life. Approximately 4 (four) weeks from now Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora 26. It is Fedora's policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained. At that time this bug will be closed as EOL if it remains open with a Fedora 'version' of '26'. Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version' to a later Fedora version. Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we were not able to fix it before Fedora 26 is end of life. If you would still like to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it against a later version of Fedora, you are encouraged change the 'version' to a later Fedora version prior this bug is closed as described in the policy above. Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events. Often a more recent Fedora release includes newer upstream software that fixes bugs or makes them obsolete. This was implemented in glibc 2.27 and made it into Fedora 28. |