Re: FAILED: patch "[PATCH] xen: Fix x86 sched_clock() interface for xen" failed to apply to 4.14-stable tree

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

 



On 22/01/2019 23:37, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> On 1/22/19 5:15 PM, Hans van Kranenburg wrote:
>> On 1/22/19 11:08 PM, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
>>> On 1/21/19 4:58 AM, gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>>> The patch below does not apply to the 4.14-stable tree.
>>>> If someone wants it applied there, or to any other stable or longterm
>>>> tree, then please email the backport, including the original git commit
>>>> id to <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>.
>>> I am actually not convinced this fix is needed for 4.14 (or earlier). I
>>> couldn't reproduce this bug.
>>>
>>> I think we also need Pasha Tatashin's time series (38669ba205d1 and
>>> friends) for the problem to show up.
>> It happens after f94c8d1169, and it was really easy to reproduce for me
>> (or not to) during bisecting.
>>
>> https://lists.xenproject.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2018-12/msg02356.html
>>
> 
> Hmm.. I ran 4.14.91 and see no problems.

dmesg from current linux-4.14.y branch:

[   53.155208] Freezing user space processes ... (elapsed 0.001 seconds)
done.
[   53.156614] OOM killer disabled.
[   53.156616] Freezing remaining freezable tasks ... (elapsed 0.001
seconds) done.
[   53.171864] suspending xenstore...
[   53.212606] xen:events: Xen HVM callback vector for event delivery is
enabled
[   53.212606] Xen Platform PCI: I/O protocol version 1
[   53.212606] xen:grant_table: Grant tables using version 1 layout
[   53.212606] xen: --> irq=9, pirq=16
[   53.212606] xen: --> irq=8, pirq=17
[   53.212606] xen: --> irq=12, pirq=18
[   53.212606] xen: --> irq=1, pirq=19
[   53.212606] xen: --> irq=6, pirq=20
[   53.212606] xen: --> irq=24, pirq=21
[18446741328.844150] OOM killer enabled.
[18446741328.844153] Restarting tasks ... done.
[18446741328.893762] Setting capacity to 16777216

So the issue is present in 4.14. BTW, I have an internal bug report for
this issue from 4.12 kernel. :-)

Greg, one question for the backport: the least intrusive way seems to be
to add another patch from upstream (commit 38669ba205d178d2d38b). Should
I add this patch separately, or do you want me to include it in the
backported patch?


Juergen



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel]     [Kernel Development Newbies]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Hiking]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux