From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-wm1-f44.google.com (mail-wm1-f44.google.com [209.85.128.44]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 50F3613AE0 for ; Fri, 29 Dec 2023 20:13:21 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=debian.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="fxYk4StE" Received: by mail-wm1-f44.google.com with SMTP id 5b1f17b1804b1-40b5155e154so93766115e9.3 for ; Fri, 29 Dec 2023 12:13:21 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1703880799; x=1704485599; darn=lists.linux.dev; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:sender:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=BuoxDF1r2nXQAbQcgBHqu0ZaVi4hq5gTpR1NRgy3bRk=; b=fxYk4StEJ197MriKM9BRUeHMkpwqED2PuBB6kXQ/oxWp/6XacneiohsshmRPv+Uh6P v/3ymG7ZYguTmsIJDUwSkl3RGEMxZ1gLJ4ZyFXkgbziuUQfejy4T6XBYhYeMV30Qs4Dl RGz6clkTzzaYZQTFCd26rtcZJwdlDsJUH8GQxMKDiuiNEMiqiIfNIuLojIxvddoxdNGc dM2XfUM2rLZ/Bt0/oUgGKuAitRXQX+WC1Nfa+v48M51s/8hz2xK8rC4WrzGcw4O2z8Sr MYIj13Ekv+mYp/nhAoN1/KJ7NJ8whxUEJdPzjGYn2zyAzfP3NSLxYzXfFvtuMs8PFK+T Kiyw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1703880799; x=1704485599; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:sender:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=BuoxDF1r2nXQAbQcgBHqu0ZaVi4hq5gTpR1NRgy3bRk=; b=hmghlsEBh5Wc5Gri9U+qNKg0/y+JFQM+2eVT9gf4WdnGJCW6kfSyvY1jWS88BzHRXZ 3Tx3Bh2yt1FEmbPaYnvViIecHtRr804um1F7iwb7YexIytybsPIa373AhzcpMLYIlZa3 w9Z/UtdgBZnlgVS6czdtqwvBZVjg+zewSgBFr3lZgUN1TkL5s0fbJxdzqZBX9+qqZm6+ DegQkmdiEleU2HX1cJVR9Gyvwo5CskTy5ckUfUgvax2/L4JH9mC/GHuIfLfbr6I44zVP vAcxLZb+64v6CFr8nzC3zh7Mea6FkpCTII4Ooetm+dxz1gvEVAFc6K9uimVKMq17envK 3X/g== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YwO1RYqwuNeLriIIz+yO40/bVkfk7OQ+UeI8TxepU+pAg4pU3S5 MIfjVMTeIhbd9WXGDMDUcAc= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IGhZT3SpzaCP8PrEkt+zUiBWyWsLmIoMRdnakQbSPt+aGbmY3zJo+NRfT4mf+9pOFet90mBlQ== X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:1f12:b0:40d:7fd2:3bed with SMTP id bd18-20020a05600c1f1200b0040d7fd23bedmr346352wmb.104.1703880799433; Fri, 29 Dec 2023 12:13:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from eldamar.lan (c-82-192-242-114.customer.ggaweb.ch. [82.192.242.114]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id k9-20020a05600c1c8900b0040d79907acasm2947493wms.26.2023.12.29.12.13.18 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Fri, 29 Dec 2023 12:13:18 -0800 (PST) Sender: Salvatore Bonaccorso Received: by eldamar.lan (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 19308BE2DE0; Fri, 29 Dec 2023 21:13:18 +0100 (CET) Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2023 21:13:18 +0100 From: Salvatore Bonaccorso To: Thorsten Leemhuis Cc: Greg KH , Sagar Biradar , James Bottomley , "Martin K. Petersen" , Adaptec OEM Raid Solutions , "stable@vger.kernel.org" , Sasha Levin , Linux kernel regressions list , Hannes Reinecke , scsi , LKML , Gilbert Wu , John Garry Subject: Re: scsi regression that after months is still not addressed and now bothering 6.1.y users, too Message-ID: References: <2023112456-disinfect-undoing-b5ef@gregkh> <34c5b291-b69e-4592-bc9f-fc1b2ef5c5d7@leemhuis.info> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: regressions@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <34c5b291-b69e-4592-bc9f-fc1b2ef5c5d7@leemhuis.info> 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?) #regzbot link: https://bugs.debian.org/1059624 #regzbot fixed-by: c5becf57dd56 Thorsten, hope I got the above right. Regards, Salvatore