On Thursday, May 05/28/20, 2020 at 10:34:03 +0200, Greg KH wrote:
On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 01:14:31PM +0530, Dakshaja Uppalapati wrote:
On Tuesday, May 05/26/20, 2020 at 12:25:42 +0200, Greg KH wrote:
On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 07:36:43PM +0530, Dakshaja Uppalapati wrote:
Hi all,
Issue which is reported in https://lore.kernel.org/linux-nvme/CH2PR12MB40050ACF 2C0DC7439355ED3FDD270@CH2PR12MB4005.namprd12.prod.outlook.com/T/#r8cfc80b26f0cd 1cde41879a68fd6a71186e9594c is also seen on stable kernel 5.4.41.
What issue is that? Your url is wrapped and can not work here :(
Sorry for that, when I tried to format the disk discovered from target machine the below error is seen in dmesg.
dmesg: [ 1844.868480] blk_update_request: I/O error, dev nvme0c0n1, sector 0 op 0x3:(DISCARD) flags 0x4000800 phys_seg 1 prio class 0
The above issue is seen from kernel-5.5-rc1 onwards.
In upstream issue is fixed with commit b716e6889c95f64b.
Is this a regression or support for something new that has never worked before?
This is a regression, bisects points to the commit 530436c4 and fixed with commit b716e688 in upstream.
Now same issue is seen with stable kernel-5.4.41, 530436c4 is part of it.
So why don't we just revert 530436c45ef2 ("nvme: Discard workaround for non-conformant devices") from the stable trees? Will that fix the issue for you instead of the much-larger set of backports you are proposing?
Also, is this an issue for you in the 4.19 releases? The above mentioned patch showed up in 4.19.92 and 5.4.7.
Yes, on 4.19 stable kernel too issue is seen. By reverting 530436c45ef2 issue is not seen on both 4.19 and 5.4 stable kernels. Do you want me to send the reverted patch?
For stable 5.4 kernel it doesn’t apply clean and needs pulling in the following commits.
commit 2cb6963a16e9e114486decf591af7cb2d69cb154 Author: Christoph Hellwig hch@lst.de Date: Wed Oct 23 10:35:41 2019 -0600
commit 6f86f2c9d94d55c4d3a6f1ffbc2e1115b5cb38a8 Author: Christoph Hellwig hch@lst.de Date: Wed Oct 23 10:35:42 2019 -0600
commit 59ef0eaa7741c3543f98220cc132c61bf0230bce Author: Christoph Hellwig hch@lst.de Date: Wed Oct 23 10:35:43 2019 -0600
commit e9061c397839eea34207668bfedce0a6c18c5015 Author: Christoph Hellwig hch@lst.de Date: Wed Oct 23 10:35:44 2019 -0600
commit b716e6889c95f64ba32af492461f6cc9341f3f05 Author: Sagi Grimberg sagi@grimberg.me Date: Sun Jan 26 23:23:28 2020 -0800
I tried a patch by including only necessary parts of the commits e9061c397839, 59ef0eaa7741 and b716e6889c95. PFA.
With the attached patch, issue is not seen.
Please let me know on how to fix it in stable, can all above 5 changes be cleanly pushed or if attached shorter version can be pushed?
Do all of the above patches apply cleanly? Do they need to be backported? Have you tested that? Do you have such a series of patches so we can compare them?
Yes I have tested, all the patches applied cleanly and attached all the patches for your reference. They all can be pulled into 5.4 stable without any issues.
530436c4 -- culprit commit 2cb6963a -- dependent commit 6f86f2c9 -- dependent commit 59ef0eaa -- dependent commit e9061c39 -- dependent commit be3f3114 -- dependent commit b716e688 -- fix commit
The patch below is not in any format that I can take it in. ALso, 95% of the times we take a patch that is different from what is upstream will have bugs and problems over time because of that. So I always want to take the original upstream patches instead if at all possible.
So I need a lot more information here in order to try to determine this, sorry.
Thanks Dakshaja
diff --git a/drivers/nvme/target/admin-cmd.c b/drivers/nvme/target/admin-cmd.c index 831a062d27cb..3665b45d6515 100644 --- a/drivers/nvme/target/admin-cmd.c +++ b/drivers/nvme/target/admin-cmd.c
<snip>
I still don't understand what the patch here is, as you don't really provide any information about it in a format I am used to seeing. Can you redo it in the documented style of submitting a normal patch to the kernel tree so that might help explain things?
thanks,
greg k-h