Re: [PATCH 4.19 00/12] 4.19.210-rc1 review

From: Richard Palethorpe <rpalethorpe@suse.de>
To: Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@linaro.org>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>,
	Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>,
	patches@kernelci.org, lkft-triage@lists.linaro.org,
	Jon Hunter <jonathanh@nvidia.com>,
	linux-stable <stable@vger.kernel.org>,
	Pavel Machek <pavel@denx.de>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>, LTP List <ltp@lists.linux.it>,
	Cyril Hrubis <chrubis@suse.cz>, Li Wang <liwang@redhat.com>,
	Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
	mkoutny@suse.cz
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.19 00/12] 4.19.210-rc1 review
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2021 08:28:31 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <875yu4au4n.fsf@suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+G9fYvOK+5qPEU7RMfD1O5O3EwTfThoh3Le9Rx8GDhY3nY1Ww@mail.gmail.com>

Hello Naresh,

Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@linaro.org> writes:

> On Fri, 8 Oct 2021 at 17:00, Greg Kroah-Hartman
> <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>
>> This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 4.19.210 release.
>> There are 12 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 Sun, 10 Oct 2021 11:27:07 +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-4.19.210-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-4.19.y
>> and the diffstat can be found below.
>>
>> thanks,
>>
>> greg k-h
>
> Results from Linaro’s test farm.
> No regressions on arm64, arm, x86_64, and i386.
>
> Tested-by: Linux Kernel Functional Testing <lkft@linaro.org>
>
> NOTE:
> LTP version upgrade to LTP 20210927.
> The new case "cfs_bandwidth01" found the following warning.
> Since it is a new test case that found this warning can not be considered as
> regression.
> This warning is only seen on stable rc 4.19
> but not found on 4.14, 5.4, 5.10 and 5.14.
>
> Test output log:
> ----------------
> cfs_bandwidth01.c:57: TINFO: Set 'worker1/cpu.max' = '3000 10000'
> cfs_bandwidth01.c:57: TINFO: Set 'worker2/cpu.max' = '2000 10000'
> cfs_bandwidth01.c:57: TINFO: Set 'worker3/cpu.max' = '3000 10000'
> cfs_bandwidth01.c:118: TPASS: Scheduled bandwidth constrained workers
> cfs_bandwidth01.c:57: TINFO: Set 'level2/cpu.max' = '5000 10000'
> cfs_bandwidth01.c:130: TPASS: Workers exited
> cfs_bandwidth01.c:118: TPASS: Scheduled bandwidth constrained workers
> cfs_bandwidth01.c:57: TINFO: Set 'level2/cpu.max' = '5000 10000'
> cfs_bandwidth01.c:130: TPASS: Workers exited
> cfs_bandwidth01.c:118: TPASS: Scheduled bandwidth constrained work[
> 56.624213] ------------[ cut here ]------------
> [   56.629421] rq->tmp_alone_branch != &rq->leaf_cfs_rq_list

FWIW this appears to be the bug the test is intended to
reproduce. Originally seen on a SUSE enterprise 4.12 kernel.

-- 
Thank you,
Richard.