Re: [PATCH 4.9 00/62] 4.9.335-rc1 review

Florian Fainelli
2022-12-05T22:48:08Z

On 12/5/22 14:28, Jon Hunter wrote:
> Hi Greg,
>
> On 05/12/2022 19:08, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>> This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 4.9.335 release.
>> There are 62 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response
>> to this one.  If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please
>> let me know.
>>
>> Responses should be made by Wed, 07 Dec 2022 19:07:46 +0000.
>> Anything received after that time might be too late.
>>
>> The whole patch series can be found in one patch at:
>>     https://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v4.x/stable-review/patch-4.9.335-rc1.gz
>> or in the git tree and branch at:
>>     git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable-rc.git linux-4.9.y
>> and the diffstat can be found below.
>>
>> thanks,
>>
>> greg k-h
>>
>> -------------
>> Pseudo-Shortlog of commits:
>>
>> Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
>>      Linux 4.9.335-rc1
>>
>> Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com>
>>      mmc: sdhci: Fix voltage switch delay
>
>
> I am seeing a boot regression on a couple boards and bisect is pointing
> to the above commit.

Same thing here, getting a hard lock for our devices with the SDHCI
controller enabled, sometimes we are lucky to see the following:

[ 4.790367] mmc0: SDHCI controller on 84b0000.sdhci [84b0000.sdhci]
using ADMA 64-bit
[ 25.802351] INFO: rcu_sched detected stalls on CPUs/tasks:
[ 25.807871] 1-...: (1 GPs behind) idle=561/140000000000000/0
softirq=728/728 fqs=5252
[ 25.815892] (detected by 0, t=21017 jiffies, g=61, c=60, q=55)
[ 25.821834] Task dump for CPU 1:
[ 25.825069] kworker/1:1 R running task 0 509 2
0x00000002
[ 25.832164] Workqueue: events_freezable mmc_rescan
[ 25.836974] Backtrace:
[ 25.839440] [<ce32fea4>] (0xce32fea4) from [<ce32fed4>] (0xce32fed4)
[ 25.845803] Backtrace aborted due to bad frame pointer <cd2f0a54>

Also confirmed that reverting that change ("mmc: sdhci: Fix voltage
switch delay") allows devices to boot properly.

Had not a chance to test the change when submitted for mainline despite
being copied, sorry about that.

Since that specific commit is also included in the other stable trees
(5.4, 5.10, 5.15 and 6.0) I will let you know whether the same issue is
present in those trees shortly thereafter.
--
Florian