* Re: your mail
[not found] <CACaajQtCTW_PKA25q3-4o4XAV6sgZnyD+Skkw6mhUHpRBEgbjQ@mail.gmail.com>
@ 2012-11-26 18:29 ` Greg KH
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Greg KH @ 2012-11-26 18:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Vasiliy Tolstov; +Cc: linux-kernel, stable
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 10:14:44PM +0400, Vasiliy Tolstov wrote:
> Hello, Greg. Hello kernel team! I'm system enginer at�clodo.ru�(russian cloud
> hosting provider) we are use xen and sles11-sp2 for our compute xen nodes.
> Each virtual machine (domU) have disks that attached by Infiniband SRP. On top
> of disk that attached by srp we use multipath (to do failover)
> Now we have issues like all commands that uses multipath hang while one storage
> is rebooted.
> After some discussion with maintainer of linux-rdma (Bart Van Assche) and using
> it backported ib_srp with HA patches we can't solve deadlock issues. Bart
> thinks that SLES team does not backport some core scsi patches to their kernel
> (3.0.42) to prevent multipath deadlock (currently is about 2.5 minutes) on
> failed target.
> Is that possible to determine or getting help to solve this issue?
As you are using SLES, please contact the SUSE for support for that
kernel, as you are paying for it, and the community can't do anything to
support their kernel, sorry.
Best of luck,
greg k-h
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* (no subject)
@ 2018-12-13 14:09 Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2018-12-13 14:33 ` your mail Sasha Levin
2018-12-14 7:11 ` Greg KH
0 siblings, 2 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior @ 2018-12-13 14:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: stable; +Cc: Peter Zijlstra, Will Deacon, Thomas Gleixner, Daniel Wagner
Hi,
this is a backport of commit 7aa54be297655 ("locking/qspinlock, x86:
Provide liveness guarantee") for the v4.9 stable tree.
For the v4.4 tree the ARCH_USE_QUEUED_SPINLOCKS option got disabled on
x86.
For v4.9 it has been decided to do a minimal backport of the final fix
(including all its dependencies).
With this backport I can't reproduce the issue in the latest v4.9-RT
tree. I was able to boot (and use) an arm64 box with these patches so it
is not broken in an abvious way.
Sebastian
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* Re: your mail
2018-12-13 14:09 Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
@ 2018-12-13 14:33 ` Sasha Levin
2018-12-13 14:39 ` Sasha Levin
2018-12-13 14:53 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-12-14 7:11 ` Greg KH
1 sibling, 2 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Sasha Levin @ 2018-12-13 14:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Backport, for, cachelinestarvationonx86
Cc: stable, Peter Zijlstra, Will Deacon, Thomas Gleixner,
Daniel Wagner
On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 03:09:15PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
>Hi,
>
>this is a backport of commit 7aa54be297655 ("locking/qspinlock, x86:
>Provide liveness guarantee") for the v4.9 stable tree.
>For the v4.4 tree the ARCH_USE_QUEUED_SPINLOCKS option got disabled on
>x86.
>For v4.9 it has been decided to do a minimal backport of the final fix
>(including all its dependencies).
>With this backport I can't reproduce the issue in the latest v4.9-RT
>tree. I was able to boot (and use) an arm64 box with these patches so it
>is not broken in an abvious way.
What about 4.14? I see that at least some of these patches are missing
there.
--
Thanks,
Sasha
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* Re: your mail
2018-12-13 14:33 ` your mail Sasha Levin
@ 2018-12-13 14:39 ` Sasha Levin
2018-12-13 15:13 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2018-12-13 14:53 ` Peter Zijlstra
1 sibling, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Sasha Levin @ 2018-12-13 14:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: bigeasy; +Cc: stable, Peter Zijlstra, Will Deacon, Thomas Gleixner,
Daniel Wagner
On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 09:33:36AM -0500, Sasha Levin wrote:
>On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 03:09:15PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
>>Hi,
>>
>>this is a backport of commit 7aa54be297655 ("locking/qspinlock, x86:
>>Provide liveness guarantee") for the v4.9 stable tree.
>>For the v4.4 tree the ARCH_USE_QUEUED_SPINLOCKS option got disabled on
>>x86.
>>For v4.9 it has been decided to do a minimal backport of the final fix
>>(including all its dependencies).
>>With this backport I can't reproduce the issue in the latest v4.9-RT
>>tree. I was able to boot (and use) an arm64 box with these patches so it
>>is not broken in an abvious way.
>
>What about 4.14? I see that at least some of these patches are missing
>there.
Hrm, there was something really fishy with the headers on your original
mail...
--
Thanks,
Sasha
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* Re: your mail
2018-12-13 14:39 ` Sasha Levin
@ 2018-12-13 15:13 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior @ 2018-12-13 15:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Sasha Levin
Cc: stable, Peter Zijlstra, Will Deacon, Thomas Gleixner,
Daniel Wagner
On 2018-12-13 09:39:46 [-0500], Sasha Levin wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 09:33:36AM -0500, Sasha Levin wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 03:09:15PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > this is a backport of commit 7aa54be297655 ("locking/qspinlock, x86:
> > > Provide liveness guarantee") for the v4.9 stable tree.
> > > For the v4.4 tree the ARCH_USE_QUEUED_SPINLOCKS option got disabled on
> > > x86.
> > > For v4.9 it has been decided to do a minimal backport of the final fix
> > > (including all its dependencies).
> > > With this backport I can't reproduce the issue in the latest v4.9-RT
> > > tree. I was able to boot (and use) an arm64 box with these patches so it
> > > is not broken in an abvious way.
> >
> > What about 4.14? I see that at least some of these patches are missing
> > there.
so v4.4 was easy peasy, v4.9 required a little work. So let me worry
about v4.14 and v4.19 next.
> Hrm, there was something really fishy with the headers on your original
> mail...
Interesting and I'm sorry. So infradead.org rejected all of my emails
saying something similar but I have no clue what went wrong.
Sebastian
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: your mail
2018-12-13 14:33 ` your mail Sasha Levin
2018-12-13 14:39 ` Sasha Levin
@ 2018-12-13 14:53 ` Peter Zijlstra
1 sibling, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Peter Zijlstra @ 2018-12-13 14:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Sasha Levin
Cc: Backport, for, cachelinestarvationonx86, stable, Will Deacon,
Thomas Gleixner, Daniel Wagner
On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 09:33:36AM -0500, Sasha Levin wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 03:09:15PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > this is a backport of commit 7aa54be297655 ("locking/qspinlock, x86:
> > Provide liveness guarantee") for the v4.9 stable tree.
> > For the v4.4 tree the ARCH_USE_QUEUED_SPINLOCKS option got disabled on
> > x86.
> > For v4.9 it has been decided to do a minimal backport of the final fix
> > (including all its dependencies).
> > With this backport I can't reproduce the issue in the latest v4.9-RT
> > tree. I was able to boot (and use) an arm64 box with these patches so it
> > is not broken in an abvious way.
>
> What about 4.14? I see that at least some of these patches are missing
> there.
4.14 can have a simpler backport indeed
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: your mail
2018-12-13 14:09 Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2018-12-13 14:33 ` your mail Sasha Levin
@ 2018-12-14 7:11 ` Greg KH
1 sibling, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Greg KH @ 2018-12-14 7:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
Cc: stable, Peter Zijlstra, Will Deacon, Thomas Gleixner,
Daniel Wagner
On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 03:09:15PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> Hi,
>
> this is a backport of commit 7aa54be297655 ("locking/qspinlock, x86:
> Provide liveness guarantee") for the v4.9 stable tree.
> For the v4.4 tree the ARCH_USE_QUEUED_SPINLOCKS option got disabled on
> x86.
> For v4.9 it has been decided to do a minimal backport of the final fix
> (including all its dependencies).
> With this backport I can't reproduce the issue in the latest v4.9-RT
> tree. I was able to boot (and use) an arm64 box with these patches so it
> is not broken in an abvious way.
As Peter said, a 4.14 backport would be simpler, but I would prefer to
wait for that before accepting these patches into 4.9.
I don't want people to move from 4.9 to 4.14 and hit a regression right
away. So if we could get a 4.14 backport first, that would be wonderful
and then allow me to take the 4.9 patches.
Seeing patches in 4.9 and 4.19 but not in 4.14 does not make me feel
good :)
And given the horrible header mistakes on this series, I'm going to drop
them to prevent anyone else from having to hand-edit them in order to
get things cleaned up. Please resend this series after you have done
that.
thanks,
greg k-h
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2018-12-14 7:11 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
[not found] <CACaajQtCTW_PKA25q3-4o4XAV6sgZnyD+Skkw6mhUHpRBEgbjQ@mail.gmail.com>
2012-11-26 18:29 ` your mail Greg KH
2018-12-13 14:09 Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2018-12-13 14:33 ` your mail Sasha Levin
2018-12-13 14:39 ` Sasha Levin
2018-12-13 15:13 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2018-12-13 14:53 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-12-14 7:11 ` Greg KH
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox