[05:08] <hallyn> hm, https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/1481723 is still happening to me in a zesty vm
[13:33] <pjf> apw: Thank you for looking into the mainline kernel repo! ( #1681183 )
[13:34] <apw> pjf, np.  very odd that the sync just stopped working, seems we lost a rule or something a few weeks back and as it is only am mirror things kept working
[13:35] <pjf> apw: I'm just glad I found the right place to report it. :)
[13:36] <leitao> I understand that the kernel for 17.04 GA is already on freeze since April 6th, right?
[13:36] <leitao> Any new patch will be only accepted in next SRU, rigth?
[13:39] <apw> leitao, it would normally take something boot essential to repin the kernel now in the release images.  we do sometimes queue up a day0 SRU kernel if there are urgent non-boot-essential changes.  otherwise we are in SRU mode, so in the next SRU cycle.
[13:41] <leitao> apw, got it.
[13:48] <apw> leitao, if you do have something you want considered we do that in the normal way, bug and email to the list
[13:50] <leitao> apw, sure, I think we can way the first SRU.
[13:50] <leitao> thanks!
[16:28] <acheronuk> Hi. is there any documentation explaining the switch to CFQ for 4.10?
[16:52] <apw> acheronuk, i believe that we did some significant testing on that, based on performance.  we moved to deadline previously because performance sucked with cfq
[16:52] <apw> acheronuk, is it causing some sort of issue ?
[16:54] <acheronuk> apw: no problem. just a forum user posing the question... https://www.kubuntuforums.net/showthread.php?71686-Stll-wrong-i-o-scheduler-used-in-17-04
[16:54] <apw> which "right" scheduler do they want
[16:54] <hallyn> apw: does anyone on kernel team do somewhat regular testing with ltp?
[16:55] <apw> hallyn, ltp is a pretty poor test suite in the main
[16:55] <acheronuk> apw: as usual,depends which random blog from someone who thinks they know you read :P
[16:55] <apw> acheronuk, indeed they are quoting cking who is the one who does those kinds of analysis
[16:55] <apw> acheronuk, and frankly they can change the default live iirc let alone at boot time
[16:56] <acheronuk> they wanted kubuntu to switch from CFQ to deadline, and I just pointed out that ubuntu had just gone the other way
[16:56] <acheronuk> so I was looking for a more detailed explanation
[16:56] <acheronuk> that is all
[16:58] <apw> i thought kubuntu was the one which was overriding us from deadline to cfq because you rely on some specific feature of cfq
[16:58] <apw> something to do with being able to hammer the disk and only use idle cycles
[16:59] <ogra_> yeah, wasnt that nepomu (or some other tool with N) that was indexing the disk content
[16:59] <ogra_> *nepomuk
[16:59] <acheronuk> apw: we have such an override in our setting, yes. that was the OP's point in the thread. they wanted us to stop that now
[17:00] <apw> which as you say would leve them as cfq anyhow
[17:00] <apw> but i think you needed it for reasons that deadline can never offer
[17:00] <acheronuk> that decision was before I was involved
[17:01] <apw> acheronuk, yeah, but i think i was involved on this side :)
[17:01] <acheronuk> I'm sure :P
[17:01] <hallyn> apw: yeah, that's what i thought.  but i'm pushing extension of filecaps in kernel - current filecaps tests are in ltp.  i could either extend those in ltp, or port them all to run standalone and add them to the kernel source.  (or something else)
[17:01] <hallyn> advice? :)
[17:03] <acheronuk> apw: anyway, just wanted to know why the change on the other flavours to CFQ now with 4.10, so I could explain why kubuntu should probably not buck the trend once again  
[17:04] <hallyn> think i'll port it all to linux/tools/testing/
[17:05] <hallyn> which will slow me down a bit...
[17:09] <apw> acheronuk, there is a fair write up in the commit.  cking did boot and performance testing
[17:09] <apw> acheronuk, for the issues we have moved away from cfq for.
[17:09] <apw> acheronuk, cfq is our natural default for our work-loads "nominally"
[17:11] <acheronuk> apw: yep. had just this second found it! http://kernel.ubuntu.com/git/ubuntu/ubuntu-zesty.git/commit/?id=af80b83a2b6184fea27f050948146fcd9a28070d
[17:11] <acheronuk> thx
[17:12] <apw> hallyn, there is some sanity in those being in the kernel self-tests in my mind
[17:12] <apw> hallyn, but i think ltp is one of the tests you can in theory run, and perhaps we can engineer a run with just hte tests you add if they end up in there
[17:13] <apw> hallyn, cking again is my expert at ading tests
[17:13] <apw> hallyn, so can perhaps give you a more targetted answer as to which is better
[17:24] <hallyn> apw: ok, thx.  i know i rarely run ltp tests (despite having written quite a few), and havne't heard of anyone who does..  now if it once gets integrated into ubuntu automated tests then maybe that's a good thing, but...
[18:24] <apw> hallyn, the issue is it has a crap-ton of tests many of which fail and that is "right" and there is no way to know
[18:24] <apw> hallyn, well that _was_ last time i worked with it
[18:42] <hallyn> apw: yes, though you can easily specify the testsuites to run, and only run the ones you're interested in.  But if most are not interesting then it doesn't really make sense
[19:19] <ogasawara> bug 1672850
[19:20] <ogasawara> cyphermox: ^^ random question, I see that is 'Fix Committed', what's the next step here?  Is there anything I need to do to shepherd that over the goal line?
[19:21] <cyphermox> ogasawara: not really, aside from kicking slangasek to do his magic. From that point you need an archive admin to apply the change.
[19:21] <ogasawara> cyphermox: ack, thanks
[19:22] <cyphermox> I guess apw could do that too
[19:23] <slangasek> ogasawara, cyphermox: is it seeded in zesty?
[19:24] <ogasawara> slangasek: I don't know
[19:24] <slangasek> it's not in zesty at all, so that answers that
[19:24] <cyphermox> no itś for xenial AFAIk
[19:24] <slangasek> right
[19:25] <slangasek> so that would've been invisible to the AA team without a ping, fwiw - doing now
[19:25] <cyphermox> ah, good to know, thanks.
[19:25] <ogasawara> indeed, /me makes a note, thanks slangasek
[20:32] <Tahvok> Hey guys!
[20:32] <Tahvok> ubuntu-support-status is showing a wrong support time for hwe kernel. For example it shows that kernel 4.8 is supported till' April 2022.
[20:33] <Tahvok> I just can't find hwe-support-status package anywhere for 16.04, so maybe I used a wrong tool?