Re: Fix for 84676c1f (b5b6e8c8) missing in 4.14.y

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



> On 10 Aug 2018, at 20:43, Felipe Franciosi <felipe@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> 
>> On 10 Aug 2018, at 11:32, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> 
>> On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 05:10:52PM +0000, Felipe Franciosi wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On 10 Aug 2018, at 03:15, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 10:31:29AM +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 02:09:01AM +0000, Felipe Franciosi wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Ming (and all),
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Your series "scsi: virtio_scsi: fix IO hang caused by irq vector automatic affinity" which forces virtio-scsi to use blk-mq fixes an issue introduced by 84676c1f. We noticed that this bug also exists in 4.14.y (as ef86f3a72adb), but your series was not backported to that stable branch.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Are there any plans to do that? At least CoreOS is using 4.14 and showing issues on AHV (which provides an mq virtio-scsi controller).
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hi Felipe,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Looks the following 4 patches should have been marked as stable, sorry
>>>>> for missing that.
>>>>> 
>>>>> b5b6e8c8d3b4 scsi: virtio_scsi: fix IO hang caused by automatic irq vector affinity
>>>>> 2f31115e940c scsi: core: introduce force_blk_mq
>>>>> adbe552349f2 scsi: megaraid_sas: fix selection of reply queue
>>>>> 8b834bff1b73 scsi: hpsa: fix selection of reply queue
>>>>> 
>>>>> Usually this backporting is done by our stable guys, so I will CC stable
>>>>> and leave them handle it, but I am happy to provide any help for
>>>>> addressing conflicts or sort of thing.
>>>> 
>>>> As the above patches do not apply "cleanly" to the 4.14.y tree at all,
>>>> can you please provide a set of backported patches that I can apply?
>>> 
>>> Actually, adbe552349f2 is already present in 4.14.y. It is commit e58114824fa6.
>>> 
>>> If you skip that, all the other three apply cleanly.
>> 
>> Ok, that works, but there's another bug report of aacraid having
>> problems.  Any ideas?
> 
> Heya, I actually have no idea which bug you are talking about. TBH I'm only experiencing the bug fixed by b5b6e8c8d3b4, which only requires 2f31115e940c. (I tested a 4.14 with both commits which resolves the bug.)
> 
> I doubt any of that would have any interference with aacraid and should be safe backports in that respect.

Hi Greg, sorry to bother but I didn't hear anything back about this. Are you picking up 2f31115e940c and b5b6e8c8d3b4 for 4.14.y or waiting for some other action?

If there's something I can do to help, please let me know. I've already tested a 4.14.62 with the two commits above and confirmed it fixes the problem we're seeing.

Thanks,
Felipe



[Index of Archives]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Linux ATA RAID]     [IDE]     [Linux Wireless]     [Linux Kernel]     [ATH6KL]     [Linux Bluetooth]     [Linux Netdev]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Security]     [Git]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Device Mapper]

  Powered by Linux