From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from relay7-d.mail.gandi.net (relay7-d.mail.gandi.net [217.70.183.200]) (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 CE9194A29 for ; Mon, 21 Aug 2023 13:09:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EF20C20008; Mon, 21 Aug 2023 13:09:55 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=xenomai.org; s=gm1; t=1692623396; 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=b4+RuIL11Xe2trLxD1InUZwmO/EH65zR/RIPG00pce0=; b=Ejq7TmDf7TOLEqY4K7/4pGCF8XszPmltGnUbZZtiY2LbRv5YF7ZigWMsjXVh+f1zl4HHSX qvVLpRllAV7EzR+GoDj9doCGNZcK/DcMpnlYXWszclS4v5Colci03QFVNp5kbYK2E6jeVz potFV+ntR/4iACuLJuu6Tjpp9vy+oHaR+ia33QFJcwzTanR7Ml3QgmaTdeGvNPqdrCj7Ke UtjvdTcUHS10TmZSy4TcYriKyEspG+vjlr4Z1aitJZTb7ULdt3wz2TG0PamP7RklgdWEdy bzT3obzpmfCkbDFQ5GINJSyNa2KPdrvYd79jBIGIN/7uTshf7GyCm9lNlUgucA== References: <87edlkeu1b.fsf@xenomai.org> <87tttiswuf.fsf@xenomai.org> <163ed99e-bb3f-afe0-27d6-eda78c65e6c5@siemens.com> <87ttt8bbrw.fsf@xenomai.org> <20b3bceb-b63b-400e-8d8c-da5252a24f5d@siemens.com> <87bkf84nb7.fsf@xenomai.org> <22412bae-4472-48a6-a20f-83256e07c4b9@siemens.com> <875y58q4b3.fsf@xenomai.org> User-agent: mu4e 1.8.11; emacs 28.2 From: Philippe Gerum To: Jan Kiszka Cc: Florian Bezdeka , Xenomai Subject: Re: v6.1.y-dovetail-rebase Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2023 15:09:14 +0200 In-reply-to: Message-ID: <87wmxoo82k.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 Jan Kiszka writes: > On 21.08.23 08:41, Philippe Gerum wrote: >> >> Jan Kiszka writes: >> >>> On 15.08.23 12:18, Philippe Gerum wrote: >>>> >>>> Jan Kiszka writes: >>>> >>>>> On 09.08.23 15:11, Philippe Gerum wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Jan Kiszka writes: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 09.08.23 07:52, Jan Kiszka wrote: >>>>>>>> On 01.08.23 15:26, Philippe Gerum wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> We are testing against -rebase anyway (but that needs a trigger which I >>>>>>>> just provided). The merging branch is only updated once there is a >>>>>>>> release tagged. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Passed with the Xenomai 3 tests: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://source.denx.de/Xenomai/xenomai-images/-/pipelines/17252 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But can we update to 6.1.44 directly? Florian mentioned that there are >>>>>>> Downfall-related fixes in that release. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Jan >>>>>> >>>>>> yes, .44 is actually brewing here already. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Now we are .45 even. Will this one be tagged? CI looks good so far. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Nope, .44 was broken due to [1]. .45 looks better with this fix in >>>> place. This issue triggered on kvm/arm64 w/ PROVE_LOCKING enabled. >>>> >>>> [1] https://source.denx.de/Xenomai/linux-dovetail/-/commit/60ae6e4ea6a074698be4d999e96e9c3697b18ea1 >>>> >>> >>> Thanks for tagging v6.1.45-dovetail1 and v5.15.126-dovetail1, I've >>> updated the merging branches accordingly. How about 5.10? >>> >> >> Not done with testing yet. >> > > If you push to -rebase, we could join that effort. > This would help, thanks. Pushed now. -- Philippe.