From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from lists.zx2c4.com (lists.zx2c4.com [165.227.139.114]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 31996EB64DA for ; Sun, 2 Jul 2023 14:08:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: by lists.zx2c4.com (ZX2C4 Mail Server) with ESMTP id b2e5ac5d; Sun, 2 Jul 2023 14:08:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-pl1-x631.google.com (mail-pl1-x631.google.com [2607:f8b0:4864:20::631]) by lists.zx2c4.com (ZX2C4 Mail Server) with ESMTPS id 1b949598 (TLSv1.3:TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256:NO) for ; Sun, 2 Jul 2023 14:08:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pl1-x631.google.com with SMTP id d9443c01a7336-1b88e84bfb8so5296375ad.2 for ; Sun, 02 Jul 2023 07:08:52 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1688306931; x=1690898931; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:references:cc:to :content-language:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=+2w54nxVPO6o+8J39UnS81CRAIwBFUFMqVaCHwISr5M=; b=NhA8IRXhuz+9cb9k7oJEZMFJB+zk8luptjHKRD33C9XVCRx/tJj0F9BwxZBPDFAH5c pkp5zQHJirG3UYoDwjjQo4ECLz0PpXTvxNsny8j414NguTK4EYbQmKcy0pe+75oz5ilT PvLRuqQ4Av8ajdzLMUeVFBOVFN5pGXLPQtQhoCYVfBGxxqJezE0C0LtWloErnPi5iC6H GDK0LFeZbMkbojtMzDaSzvlZHAm0CIH2I64MkYNCHV46VDmPN2uFw+oRK37xsAZynyu2 YFFEScNGDXF+qtPk3dhaK2elIJwMhQxwh/RhKkGuiSglNPaNNfJvaQ8lzdAyvx3ij4sb iduQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1688306931; x=1690898931; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:references:cc:to :content-language:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=+2w54nxVPO6o+8J39UnS81CRAIwBFUFMqVaCHwISr5M=; b=Yaal4HKRfDNlO/cNEawth4JjMsjccN9j9+ngN1r2BwIbLnrzclO/EgFfaDYDjrVb0w ISV4x2pR488eEbeXbjOCgYUYxmgd2GBV71yfVS9YdjRnE/fFVjSlHz30fsy7dxmEwUJR Bs0I3luzxPMcx16/c4gBvtsCICVpo5WO8QMgmpCNQDECeWd7QAiTTQfNu1FbJqMEJ16c iwmBAlriAkhNMbgoO0nrD3mI/tcAS3kqaPju7Y3+aUwxjHKmwl34GgKrTur5+rhuM3RA epC0+7k4TwJoivj2UszhaioEHe9nLOUrg4oSnCh3x3lhXSUGv/0cLkstfQ6n7O3d0qu6 c7lQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ABy/qLZTx0gsgTpXAhrwJEQUgTzYIU8fqlxquBkmofQPvKt8D0D6FNb/ Pln83sZ8m2aGigKH7HHsO2w= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APBJJlFa2PZ9jIdWwi9dWb1g0KHD9JH5PBgSre+nm+nmMS7SXICBfS5NfytLiK5hr6npw22hSdVnsQ== X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:d703:b0:1b8:9046:4bfb with SMTP id w3-20020a170902d70300b001b890464bfbmr2062798ply.9.1688306930794; Sun, 02 Jul 2023 07:08:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.0.103] ([103.131.18.64]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id a3-20020a170902b58300b001ab2b415bdbsm13635200pls.45.2023.07.02.07.08.35 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 02 Jul 2023 07:08:50 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <644f4551-32e8-11f9-0d4a-ad1045fdae77@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2023 21:08:27 +0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.12.0 Subject: Re: Fwd: RCU stalls with wireguard over bonding over igb on Linux 6.3.0+ Content-Language: en-US To: Linux regressions mailing list , Eric DeVolder , "Borislav Petkov (AMD)" , David R , Boris Ostrovsky , Miguel Luis , "Paul E. McKenney" , Joel Fernandes , Boqun Feng , "Jason A. Donenfeld" , Jay Vosburgh , Andy Gospodarek , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Len Brown , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , Dave Hansen , x86@kernel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List , Linux RCU , Wireguard Mailing List , Linux Networking , Linux ACPI , Manuel 'satmd' Leiner References: <79196679-fb65-e5ad-e836-2c43447cfacd@gmail.com> <10f2a5ee-91e2-1241-9e3b-932c493e61b6@leemhuis.info> From: Bagas Sanjaya In-Reply-To: <10f2a5ee-91e2-1241-9e3b-932c493e61b6@leemhuis.info> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: wireguard@lists.zx2c4.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.30rc1 Precedence: list List-Id: Development discussion of WireGuard List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: wireguard-bounces@lists.zx2c4.com Sender: "WireGuard" On 7/2/23 19:37, Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis) wrote: > On 02.07.23 13:57, Bagas Sanjaya wrote: >> [also Cc: original reporter] > > BTW: I think you CCed too many developers here. There are situations > where this can makes sense, but it's rare. And if you do this too often > people might start to not really look into your mails or might even > ignore them completely. > > Normally it's enough to write the mail to (1) the people in the > signed-off-by-chain, (2) the maintainers of the subsystem that merged a > commit, and (3) the lists for all affected subsystems; leave it up to > developers from the first two groups to CC the maintainers of the third > group. > Hi, In this case I had to also Cc: wireguard, bonding, RCU, and x86 people, since this issue spans these subsystems (I naively thought). Anyway, thanks for detailed tip (honestly /me wonder if I forgot this later, as is often the case). >> On 7/2/23 10:31, Bagas Sanjaya wrote: >>> I notice a regression report on Bugzilla [1]. Quoting from it: >>> >>>> I've spent the last week on debugging a problem with my attempt to upgrade my kernel from 6.2.8 to 6.3.8 (now also with >> [...] >>> See Bugzilla for the full thread. >>> >>> Anyway, I'm adding it to regzbot to make sure it doesn't fall through cracks >>> unnoticed: >>> >>> #regzbot introduced: fed8d8773b8ea6 https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=217620 >>> #regzbot title: correcting acpi_is_processor_usable() check causes RCU stalls with wireguard over bonding+igb >>> #regzbot link: https://bugs.gentoo.org/909066 > >> satmd: Can you repeat bisection to confirm that fed8d8773b8ea6 is >> really the culprit? > > I'd be careful to ask people that, as that might mean a lot of work for > them. Best to leave things like that to developers, unless it's pretty > obvious that something went sideways. > OK. >> Thorsten: It seems like the reporter concluded bisection to the >> (possibly) incorrect culprit. > > What makes your think so? I just looked at bugzilla and it (for now) > seems reverting fed8d8773b8ea6 ontop of 6.4 fixed things for the > reporter, which is a pretty strong indicator that this change really > causes the trouble somehow. > OK too. > /me really wonders what's he's missing > >> What can I do in this case besides >> asking to repeat bisection? > > Not much apart from updating regzbot state (e.g. something like "regzbot > introduced v6.3..v6.4") and a reply to your initial report (ideally with > a quick apology) to let everyone know it was a false alarm. > OK. -- An old man doll... just what I always wanted! - Clara