From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from relay8-d.mail.gandi.net (relay8-d.mail.gandi.net [217.70.183.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 08DA9111E for ; Tue, 1 Aug 2023 13:42:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 140B31BF204; Tue, 1 Aug 2023 13:42:16 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=xenomai.org; s=gm1; t=1690897337; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=Eh7zz1uXifmPKNBVCKMssy0ub0MVkzOyFOAJcXxlrrI=; b=hLjkfORLKt4S7Oa0rRAH77vkHspPnuDgl/5rr30h0aw/A5clZE3beIrSCrSl+FhRxLCl2M MMM8WxIw38SkLBZVmymeV3YBLdhxAPuKeS4OcwRQI+U1Iz+NeAVcR8hbsZ/PKVQq2juvWg 82m6cGkZB4Xgj8szsF024FlCQ6cC1U+KmOApK6vBfSPQkNg/YjSM9glthvs38XkNwhydxF Ft8kraLvSy5h43Q5961YIttHQ33LMpAtlt6AeZq3NWQ8E7QmTgRaB8k/JRMF5RqJOfxJeL 4IdarmNwGUTo0NLPh3IUzEjDQQsHFZZ7YnwgSO2ePi3XgqTtDmCxZDmGvCDppQ== References: <87edlkeu1b.fsf@xenomai.org> User-agent: mu4e 1.8.11; emacs 28.2 From: Philippe Gerum To: Florian Bezdeka Cc: Jan Kiszka , Xenomai Subject: Re: v6.1.y-dovetail-rebase Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2023 15:26:44 +0200 In-reply-to: Message-ID: <87tttiswuf.fsf@xenomai.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: xenomai@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-GND-Sasl: rpm@xenomai.org Florian Bezdeka writes: > On Mon, 2023-07-10 at 08:59 +0200, Florian Bezdeka wrote: >> On Thu, 2023-07-06 at 21:00 +0200, Philippe Gerum wrote: >> > Hi, >> > >> > Jan Kiszka writes: >> > >> > > Hi Philippe, >> > > >> > > quick feedback on latest rebasing: >> > > >> > > https://source.denx.de/Xenomai/linux-dovetail/-/commit/8f155631c8b51731dfc2ae5145d4dcc68f2ed7ed >> > > >> > > This was likely accidentally folded, right? >> > > >> > >> > It looks so. This conditional statement appeared upstream during the >> > v6.0 cycle it seems, and was unfortunately left unfixed in the dovetail >> > patch for this entire series. >> > >> > > Furthermore, I will factor this change out into a separate commit in >> > > merging v6.1.y-dovetail, for better traceability: >> > > >> > > diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/fault.c b/arch/x86/mm/fault.c >> > > index ce8bdd804bc7..c843bf352999 100644 >> > > --- a/arch/x86/mm/fault.c >> > > +++ b/arch/x86/mm/fault.c >> > > @@ -1466,7 +1466,7 @@ void do_user_addr_fault(struct pt_regs *regs, >> > > >> > > /* The fault is fully completed (including releasing mmap lock) */ >> > > if (fault & VM_FAULT_COMPLETED) >> > > - return; >> > > + goto out; >> > > >> > > /* >> > > * If we need to retry the mmap_lock has already been released, >> > > >> > > To my understanding, this was a dovetail fix that applied to previous >> > > versions as well. >> > >> > Only to v6.0, however this series is not maintained dovetail-wise >> > anymore, so this stayed under the radar. >> >> FYI: This change fixes a real issue here. The 6.1-rebase branch made it >> through a 24h stress test while the "merge" branch failed. Happily >> waiting for the next release... > > Do we have a idea / plan when the next 6.1 dovetail release will > happen? My internal customer is waiting for that and I want to avoid > backporting to 6.1.34. > There is a brewing rebase to v6.1.42 pending tests here, no challenging source conflict. I pushed the tree untagged to the v6.1.y-rebase branch if you want to give it a try before Jan updates the stable branch. > @Philippe, any news regarding the IRQ issue? Did the VM image help to > reproduce the issue? > I did not have a chance to look at this yet although I intend to, no spare cycles ATM. I'll follow up when I have news. Since it takes ~18h on average to observe the issue on your end, I would not expect a quick resolution though. -- Philippe.