Commit moratorium for branching Xen 4.9

Commit moratorium for branching Xen 4.9

[Julien Grall]

Hi,

The patches fixing the 2 outstanding regressions have been merged.

I would like to make another attempt to branch with the RC (4.9 RC7). I 
don't want to branch when master != staging, so please avoid committing 
new patches to staging now to let master catch up with staging. Another 
announcement will be made when the moratorium is lifted.

Cheers,

-- 
Julien Grall

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel

Re: Commit moratorium for branching Xen 4.9

[Boris Ostrovsky]

On 05/25/2017 11:54 AM, Julien Grall wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The patches fixing the 2 outstanding regressions have been merged.

Is this:

https://lists.xenproject.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2017-05/msg02340.html

being deferred to the next RC (if we are having one)?

-boris

>
> I would like to make another attempt to branch with the RC (4.9 RC7).
> I don't want to branch when master != staging, so please avoid
> committing new patches to staging now to let master catch up with
> staging. Another announcement will be made when the moratorium is lifted.
>
> Cheers,
>


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel

Re: Commit moratorium for branching Xen 4.9

[Julien Grall]

Hi Boris,

On 25/05/17 18:08, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> On 05/25/2017 11:54 AM, Julien Grall wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> The patches fixing the 2 outstanding regressions have been merged.
>
> Is this:
>
> https://lists.xenproject.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2017-05/msg02340.html
>
> being deferred to the next RC (if we are having one)?

I missed that issue sorry. So far, this patch lacks of 
Acked-by/Reviewed-by but as a Tested-by.

I am aware the patch that introduced the regression (efa9596e9d "x86/mm: 
fix incorrect unmapping of 2MB and 1GB pages") was attempting to prevent 
breaking down an EPT structure irreversibly when removing 2MB and 1GB 
pages. AFAIU, this commit will improve performance, but a boot 
regression was introduced on AMD platforms.

As the first regression was not introduced by Xen 4.9 and we lack review 
bandwidth, I would suggest to revert the commit efa9596e9d until we get 
the patch [1] reviewed.

If we managed to review it before the release, then we can consider to 
include both of them. But, at the moment, I would not consider the 
regression fixed by the commit efa9596e9d as a blocker for the release.

Cheers,

[1] 
https://lists.xenproject.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2017-05/msg02340.html

-- 
Julien Grall

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel

Re: Commit moratorium for branching Xen 4.9

[Boris Ostrovsky]

On 05/25/2017 01:46 PM, Julien Grall wrote:
> Hi Boris,
>
> On 25/05/17 18:08, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
>> On 05/25/2017 11:54 AM, Julien Grall wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> The patches fixing the 2 outstanding regressions have been merged.
>>
>> Is this:
>>
>> https://lists.xenproject.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2017-05/msg02340.html
>>
>>
>> being deferred to the next RC (if we are having one)?
>
> I missed that issue sorry. So far, this patch lacks of
> Acked-by/Reviewed-by but as a Tested-by.
>
> I am aware the patch that introduced the regression (efa9596e9d
> "x86/mm: fix incorrect unmapping of 2MB and 1GB pages") was attempting
> to prevent breaking down an EPT structure irreversibly when removing
> 2MB and 1GB pages. AFAIU, this commit will improve performance, but a
> boot regression was introduced on AMD platforms.


The regression only affects AMD guests that have maxmem > memory.

Since we have a fix in flight my suggestion would be to release-note
this issue but not revert the offending patch.

-boris

>
> As the first regression was not introduced by Xen 4.9 and we lack
> review bandwidth, I would suggest to revert the commit efa9596e9d
> until we get the patch [1] reviewed.
>
> If we managed to review it before the release, then we can consider to
> include both of them. But, at the moment, I would not consider the
> regression fixed by the commit efa9596e9d as a blocker for the release.
>
> Cheers,
>
> [1]
> https://lists.xenproject.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2017-05/msg02340.html
>


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel

Re: Commit moratorium for branching Xen 4.9

[Jan Beulich]

>>> On 25.05.17 at 20:00, <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com> wrote:
> On 05/25/2017 01:46 PM, Julien Grall wrote:
>> On 25/05/17 18:08, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
>>> Is this:
>>>
>>> https://lists.xenproject.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2017-05/msg02340.html 
>>>
>>>
>>> being deferred to the next RC (if we are having one)?
>>
>> I missed that issue sorry. So far, this patch lacks of
>> Acked-by/Reviewed-by but as a Tested-by.
>>
>> I am aware the patch that introduced the regression (efa9596e9d
>> "x86/mm: fix incorrect unmapping of 2MB and 1GB pages") was attempting
>> to prevent breaking down an EPT structure irreversibly when removing
>> 2MB and 1GB pages. AFAIU, this commit will improve performance, but a
>> boot regression was introduced on AMD platforms.
> 
> 
> The regression only affects AMD guests that have maxmem > memory.
> 
> Since we have a fix in flight my suggestion would be to release-note
> this issue but not revert the offending patch.

I'm pretty convinced we can get this sorted before 4.9 goes out,
so +1 to not reverting right away. I'm not even sure is we may
notice this in osstest, as I'm uncertain whether there are any
tests with maxmem > memory.

Jan


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel

Re: Commit moratorium for branching Xen 4.9

[Julien Grall]

Hi Jan,

On 26/05/17 07:02, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 25.05.17 at 20:00, <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com> wrote:
>> On 05/25/2017 01:46 PM, Julien Grall wrote:
>>> On 25/05/17 18:08, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
>>>> Is this:
>>>>
>>>> https://lists.xenproject.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2017-05/msg02340.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> being deferred to the next RC (if we are having one)?
>>>
>>> I missed that issue sorry. So far, this patch lacks of
>>> Acked-by/Reviewed-by but as a Tested-by.
>>>
>>> I am aware the patch that introduced the regression (efa9596e9d
>>> "x86/mm: fix incorrect unmapping of 2MB and 1GB pages") was attempting
>>> to prevent breaking down an EPT structure irreversibly when removing
>>> 2MB and 1GB pages. AFAIU, this commit will improve performance, but a
>>> boot regression was introduced on AMD platforms.
>>
>>
>> The regression only affects AMD guests that have maxmem > memory.
>>
>> Since we have a fix in flight my suggestion would be to release-note
>> this issue but not revert the offending patch.
>
> I'm pretty convinced we can get this sorted before 4.9 goes out,
> so +1 to not reverting right away. I'm not even sure is we may
> notice this in osstest, as I'm uncertain whether there are any
> tests with maxmem > memory.

I haven't spot any failure related to that.

Anyway, I will keep an eye on the patch but I will not consider as a 
blocker for branching.

Cheers,

-- 
Julien Grall

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel

Re: Commit moratorium for branching Xen 4.9

[Julien Grall]

On 25/05/17 16:54, Julien Grall wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The patches fixing the 2 outstanding regressions have been merged.
>
> I would like to make another attempt to branch with the RC (4.9 RC7). I
> don't want to branch when master != staging, so please avoid committing
> new patches to staging now to let master catch up with staging. Another
> announcement will be made when the moratorium is lifted.

Xen 4.9 has been branched and now re-opened. For bug fixes please commit 
them to staging first then backport them to staging 4.9.

Please CC me on any patch going to Xen 4.9.

Cheers,

-- 
Julien Grall

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel

Re: Commit moratorium for branching Xen 4.9

[Julien Grall]

Hi,

On 26/05/17 07:02, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 25.05.17 at 20:00, <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com> wrote:
>> On 05/25/2017 01:46 PM, Julien Grall wrote:
>>> On 25/05/17 18:08, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
>>>> Is this:
>>>>
>>>> https://lists.xenproject.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2017-05/msg02340.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> being deferred to the next RC (if we are having one)?
>>>
>>> I missed that issue sorry. So far, this patch lacks of
>>> Acked-by/Reviewed-by but as a Tested-by.
>>>
>>> I am aware the patch that introduced the regression (efa9596e9d
>>> "x86/mm: fix incorrect unmapping of 2MB and 1GB pages") was attempting
>>> to prevent breaking down an EPT structure irreversibly when removing
>>> 2MB and 1GB pages. AFAIU, this commit will improve performance, but a
>>> boot regression was introduced on AMD platforms.
>>
>>
>> The regression only affects AMD guests that have maxmem > memory.
>>
>> Since we have a fix in flight my suggestion would be to release-note
>> this issue but not revert the offending patch.
>
> I'm pretty convinced we can get this sorted before 4.9 goes out,
> so +1 to not reverting right away. I'm not even sure is we may
> notice this in osstest, as I'm uncertain whether there are any
> tests with maxmem > memory.

I haven't seen any update on this patch. Shall we make a release note 
about the regression or will it be fixed for Xen 4.9?

Cheers,

-- 
Julien Grall

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel

Re: Commit moratorium for branching Xen 4.9

[Jan Beulich]

>>> On 01.06.17 at 19:57, <julien.grall@arm.com> wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 26/05/17 07:02, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>> On 25.05.17 at 20:00, <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com> wrote:
>>> On 05/25/2017 01:46 PM, Julien Grall wrote:
>>>> On 25/05/17 18:08, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
>>>>> Is this:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://lists.xenproject.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2017-05/msg02340.html 
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> being deferred to the next RC (if we are having one)?
>>>>
>>>> I missed that issue sorry. So far, this patch lacks of
>>>> Acked-by/Reviewed-by but as a Tested-by.
>>>>
>>>> I am aware the patch that introduced the regression (efa9596e9d
>>>> "x86/mm: fix incorrect unmapping of 2MB and 1GB pages") was attempting
>>>> to prevent breaking down an EPT structure irreversibly when removing
>>>> 2MB and 1GB pages. AFAIU, this commit will improve performance, but a
>>>> boot regression was introduced on AMD platforms.
>>>
>>>
>>> The regression only affects AMD guests that have maxmem > memory.
>>>
>>> Since we have a fix in flight my suggestion would be to release-note
>>> this issue but not revert the offending patch.
>>
>> I'm pretty convinced we can get this sorted before 4.9 goes out,
>> so +1 to not reverting right away. I'm not even sure is we may
>> notice this in osstest, as I'm uncertain whether there are any
>> tests with maxmem > memory.
> 
> I haven't seen any update on this patch. Shall we make a release note 
> about the regression or will it be fixed for Xen 4.9?

I've committed this one to master a minute ago; would need your
ack for 4.9. Would also need your ack for pulling over "x86/HVM:
correct notion of new CPL in task switch emulation".

Jan


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel

Re: Commit moratorium for branching Xen 4.9

[Julien Grall]

Hi all,

We haven't branch due to some regressions found during the week-end.

Meanwhile an RC has been cut and staging has been re-opened.

Please CC me on any patch going to Xen 4.9.

Cheers,

staging is now re-opened. We haven't branch due to some

On 19/05/17 15:56, Julien Grall wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Xen tree is going to branch at 4.9 RC6. I don't want to branch when
> master != staging, so please avoid committing new patches to staging now
> to let master catch up with staging. Another announcement will be made
> when the moratorium is lifted.
>
> Cheers,
>

-- 
Julien Grall

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel

Commit moratorium for branching Xen 4.9

[Julien Grall]

Hi all,

Xen tree is going to branch at 4.9 RC6. I don't want to branch when
master != staging, so please avoid committing new patches to staging now
to let master catch up with staging. Another announcement will be made
when the moratorium is lifted.

Cheers,

-- 
Julien Grall

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel