On 08/21/2018 04:57 PM, Ming Lei wrote:
On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 04:45:41PM +0300, Jarkko Nikula wrote:
On 08/21/2018 04:03 PM, Adrian Hunter wrote:
On 21/08/18 15:37, Jarkko Nikula wrote:
Hi
I bisected some kind of SDHCI regression to commit 6ce3dd6eec11 ("blk-mq:
issue directly if hw queue isn't busy in case of 'none'") causing dumps
below and one or more systemd-udevd processes being in uninterruptible sleep
state preventing safe reboot/shutdown.
This is from an Intel Baytrail based tablet with integrated eMMC but my
up-to-date Debian/testing rootfs (with systemd) is on USB stick.
It doesn't revert cleanly on today's head 778a33959a8a but issue is gone if
I go to a commit before 6ce3dd6eec11 and occurs at 6ce3dd6eec11.
This was discussed here:
https://marc.info/?l=linux-block&m=153334717506073&w=2
Coincidentally, I just sent the fix patch:
https://marc.info/?l=linux-mmc&m=153485326025301&w=2
Cool, it fixed my regression. I tested both on top of 6ce3dd6eec11 and head
778a33959a8a. Maybe you would like to add into your patch another fixes tag
and my tested by:
Fixes: 6ce3dd6eec11 ("blk-mq: issue directly if hw queue isn't busy in case
of 'none'")
If you read the above links carefully, you'd see it is wrong to add the tag of
'Fixes: 6ce3dd6eec11'.
Hmm... why? That commit 6ce3dd6eec11 was clearly regressing on my setup
while Adrian's fix for 81196976ed94 that has been present since v4.16
fixes my finding too.
I don't know well enough MMC and block layer but if commit 6ce3dd6eec11
revealed an issue from MMC under my configuration I'd call it still a
regression.
--
Jarkko
