On Fri, Dec 29, 2023 at 09:13:18PM +0100, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote: > Hi all, > > On Sat, Nov 25, 2023 at 08:10:35AM +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > > On 24.11.23 17:25, Greg KH wrote: > > > On Tue, Nov 21, 2023 at 10:50:57AM +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > > >> * @SCSI maintainers: could you please look into below please? > > >> > > >> * @Stable team: you might want to take a look as well and consider a > > >> revert in 6.1.y (yes, I know, those are normally avoided, but here it > > >> might make sense). > > >> > > >> Hi everyone! > > >> > > >> TLDR: I noticed a regression (Adaptec 71605z with aacraid sometimes > > >> hangs for a while) that was reported months ago already but is still not > > >> fixed. Not only that, it apparently more and more users run into this > > >> recently, as the culprit was recently integrated into 6.1.y; I wonder if > > >> it would be best to revert it there, unless a fix for mainline comes > > >> into reach soon. > > >> > > >> Details: > > >> > > >> Quite a few machines with Adaptec controllers seems to hang for a few > > >> tens of seconds to a few minutes before things start to work normally > > >> again for a while: > > >> https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=217599 > > >> > > >> That problem is apparently caused by 9dc704dcc09eae ("scsi: aacraid: > > >> Reply queue mapping to CPUs based on IRQ affinity") [v6.4-rc7]. That > > >> commit despite a warning of mine to Sasha recently made it into 6.1.53 > > >> -- and that way apparently recently reached more users recently, as > > >> quite a few joined that ticket. > > >[...] > > > I am loath to revert a stable patch that has been there for so long as > > > any upgrade will just cause the same bug to show back up. Why can't we > > > just revert it in Linus's tree now and I'll take that revert in the > > > stable trees as well? > > > > FWIW, I know and in general agree with that strategy, that's why I > > normally wouldn't have brought a stable-only revert up for > > consideration. But this issue to me looked somewhat special and urgent > > for two and a half reasons: (1) that backport apparently made a lot more > > people suddenly hit the issue (2) there was also this data corruption > > aspect one of the reporters mentioned (not sure if that is real and/or > > if this might be just a 6.1.y thing). Furthermore for 6.1.y it was > > recently confirmed that reverting the change fixes things, while we iirc > > had no such confirmation for recent mainline kernels at that point. So > > it looked like it would take a while to get this sorted out in mainline. > > But it seems we finally might get closer to that now, so yeah, maybe > > it's not worth a stable revert. > > If I'm not completely wrong, finally indeed the commit has been > reverted in mainline, with c5becf57dd56 ("Revert "scsi: aacraid: Reply > queue mapping to CPUs based on IRQ affinity"") . > > This is what was mentioned here: > https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=217599#c52 > > So should/can it be reverted it now as well on the 6.1.y stable series > (and the others up as needed?) Now queued up, thanks. greg k-h
