From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88E29C433EF for ; Mon, 25 Oct 2021 07:08:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 684F160F9C for ; Mon, 25 Oct 2021 07:08:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S231305AbhJYHKV (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Oct 2021 03:10:21 -0400 Received: from verein.lst.de ([213.95.11.211]:55815 "EHLO verein.lst.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S231250AbhJYHKU (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Oct 2021 03:10:20 -0400 Received: by verein.lst.de (Postfix, from userid 2407) id 02C2D68B05; Mon, 25 Oct 2021 09:07:56 +0200 (CEST) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2021 09:07:55 +0200 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Daejun Park Cc: James Bottomley , Bart Van Assche , Christoph Hellwig , Jens Axboe , "martin.petersen@oracle.com" , "linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-block@vger.kernel.org" , Jaegeuk Kim Subject: Re: please revert the UFS HPB support Message-ID: <20211025070755.GA7742@lst.de> References: <571fc7393fb043e3c34bca57402bd098a56ea8ac.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <20211021144210.GA28195@lst.de> <84fac5a3-135a-2ac8-5929-a1031a311cb7@kernel.dk> <20211021151520.GA31407@lst.de> <20211021151728.GA31600@lst.de> <2cba13c3-bcd5-2a47-e4cb-54fa1ca088f3@acm.org> <20211025051654epcms2p36b259d237eb2b8b885210148118c5d3f@epcms2p3> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20211025051654epcms2p36b259d237eb2b8b885210148118c5d3f@epcms2p3> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-block@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Oct 25, 2021 at 02:16:54PM +0900, Daejun Park wrote: > > before the kernel is due to go final. Can the problems identified by > > Christoph be fixed within that timeframe? > > I'm checking to see if I can replace blk_execute_rq_nowait with > blk_insert_cloned_request in the HPB code. blk_insert_cloned_request is part of the problem. You can't just fan out one request into two on the same queue. FYI, 5.15 is supposed to be released end of this week (unless an -rc8) happens. I don't think we can sit this out, we need to revert (or at least disable) the code now.