Re: Regression: serial: imx: overrun errors on debug UART - Greg Kroah-Hartman

From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To: "Uwe Kleine-König" <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>
Cc: "Linux regressions mailing list" <regressions@lists.linux.dev>,
	"Stefan Wahren" <stefan.wahren@i2se.com>,
	"Pengutronix Kernel Team" <kernel@pengutronix.de>,
	"Jiri Slaby" <jirislaby@kernel.org>,
	"Stefan Wahren" <stefan.wahren@chargebyte.com>,
	"Sascha Hauer" <s.hauer@pengutronix.de>,
	"Shawn Guo" <shawnguo@kernel.org>,
	"Sergey Organov" <sorganov@gmail.com>,
	"NXP Linux Team" <linux-imx@nxp.com>,
	linux-serial@vger.kernel.org,
	"Ilpo Järvinen" <ilpo.jarvinen@linux.intel.com>,
	"Fabio Estevam" <festevam@gmail.com>,
	"Tomasz Moń" <tomasz.mon@camlingroup.com>,
	"Linux ARM" <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: Regression: serial: imx: overrun errors on debug UART
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2023 10:43:39 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <2023062116-skintight-royal-39d8@gregkh> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230620192748.ey4oah22resbblej@pengutronix.de>

On Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 09:27:48PM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> Hello Greg,
> 
> On Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 04:59:18PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 04:47:10PM +0200, Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis) wrote:
> > > On 24.05.23 15:07, Stefan Wahren wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > Am 23.05.23 um 21:44 schrieb Sergey Organov:
> > > >> "Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis)"
> > > >> <regressions@leemhuis.info> writes:
> > > >>
> > > >> Solving this would need to identify the cause of interrupts being
> > > >> disabled for prolonged times, and nobody volunteered to investigate this
> > > >> further. One suspect, the Linux serial console, has been likely excluded
> > > >> already though, as not actually being in use for printk() output.
> > > >>
> > > > 
> > > > I don't think that we can exclude the serial console as a whole, i never
> > > > made such a observation. But at least we can exclude kernel logging on
> > > > the debug UART.
> > > 
> > > Stefan, just wondering: was this ever addressed upstream? I assume it's
> > > not, just wanted to be sure.
> > > 
> > > I'm a bit unsure what to do with this and consider asking Greg for
> > > advice, as he applied the patch. On one hand it's *IMHO* clearly a
> > > regression (but for the record,  some people involved in the discussion
> > > claim it's not). OTOH the culprit was applied more than a year ago now,
> > > so reverting it might cause more trouble than it's worth at this point,
> > > as that could lead to regressions for other users.
> > 
> > I'll be glad to revert this, but for some reason I thought that someone
> > was working on a "real fix" here.  Stefan, is that not the case?
> 
> Sergey Organov already said something similar, but not very explicit:
> With the current understanding reverting said commit is wrong. It is
> expected that the commit increases irq latency for imx-serial a bit for
> the benefit of less interrupts and so serves the overall system
> performance. That this poses a problem only means that on the reporter's
> machine there is already an issue that results in a longer period with
> disabled irqs. While reverting the imx-serial commit would (maybe) solve
> that, the actual problem is the other issue that disables preemption for
> a longer timespan.
> 
> So TL;DR: Please don't revert the imx-serial patch.

Ok, will leave this alone, it shouldn't be marked as a regression.

greg k-h

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel