Bug#956890: buster-pu: package zfs-linux/0.7.12-2+deb10u2
Hi Adam, Thanks for the notification! It has been uploaded just now. Was indulging in the pytorch related stuff. On Fri, May 01, 2020 at 11:22:54AM +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > Ping? (On both this question and the zfs-linux upload.) > > The window for getting fixes into 10.4 closes during this weekend. > > Regards, > > Adam >
Bug#956890: buster-pu: package zfs-linux/0.7.12-2+deb10u2
On Sun, 2020-04-26 at 18:07 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > Control: tags -1 + confirmed > > On Sun, 2020-04-26 at 15:52 +, Mo Zhou wrote: > > On Sun, Apr 26, 2020 at 03:25:22PM +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > > > On Wed, 2020-04-22 at 05:21 +, Mo Zhou wrote: > > > > The whole fix involes two parts: a part goes to src:zfs-linux > > > > and > > > > the > > > > other goes to src:spl-linux. Now that the updated src:spl-linux > > > > is > > > > already uploaded, and I'm now asking for the permission to > > > > upload > > > > the > > > > updated src:zfs-linux. Which includes two upstream commits > > > > fixing > > > > potential deadlock issues. > > > > > > What happens if a user tries using the current spl-dkms with the > > > newer > > > zfs-dkms, or vice versa? > > > > I forgot to add Depends: spl-dkms (>= 0.7.12-2+deb10u1, s-p-u) into > > the debdiff of zfs-linux. > > OK. With that change included, please feel free to go ahead. > > > Actually zfs-linux (= 0.7.12-2+deb10u1, buster) have no problem to > > build atop spl-linux (= 0.7.12-2, buster) or (= 0.7.12-2+deb10u1, > > s- > > p-u); while zfs-linux (= 0.7.12-2+deb10u2, s-p-u) will FTBFS atop > > spl-linux (= 0.7.12-2, buster) > > > > So it's fine to accept spl-linux now, without causing any issues? Ping? (On both this question and the zfs-linux upload.) The window for getting fixes into 10.4 closes during this weekend. Regards, Adam
Bug#956890: buster-pu: package zfs-linux/0.7.12-2+deb10u2
Control: tags -1 + confirmed On Sun, 2020-04-26 at 15:52 +, Mo Zhou wrote: > On Sun, Apr 26, 2020 at 03:25:22PM +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > > On Wed, 2020-04-22 at 05:21 +, Mo Zhou wrote: > > > The whole fix involes two parts: a part goes to src:zfs-linux and > > > the > > > other goes to src:spl-linux. Now that the updated src:spl-linux > > > is > > > already uploaded, and I'm now asking for the permission to upload > > > the > > > updated src:zfs-linux. Which includes two upstream commits fixing > > > potential deadlock issues. > > > > What happens if a user tries using the current spl-dkms with the > > newer > > zfs-dkms, or vice versa? > > I forgot to add Depends: spl-dkms (>= 0.7.12-2+deb10u1, s-p-u) into > the debdiff of zfs-linux. OK. With that change included, please feel free to go ahead. > Actually zfs-linux (= 0.7.12-2+deb10u1, buster) have no problem to > build atop spl-linux (= 0.7.12-2, buster) or (= 0.7.12-2+deb10u1, s- > p-u); while zfs-linux (= 0.7.12-2+deb10u2, s-p-u) will FTBFS atop > spl-linux (= 0.7.12-2, buster) > So it's fine to accept spl-linux now, without causing any issues? Regards, Adam
Bug#956890: buster-pu: package zfs-linux/0.7.12-2+deb10u2
On Sun, Apr 26, 2020 at 03:25:22PM +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > On Wed, 2020-04-22 at 05:21 +, Mo Zhou wrote: > > The whole fix involes two parts: a part goes to src:zfs-linux and the > > other goes to src:spl-linux. Now that the updated src:spl-linux is > > already uploaded, and I'm now asking for the permission to upload the > > updated src:zfs-linux. Which includes two upstream commits fixing > > potential deadlock issues. > > What happens if a user tries using the current spl-dkms with the newer > zfs-dkms, or vice versa? I forgot to add Depends: spl-dkms (>= 0.7.12-2+deb10u1, s-p-u) into the debdiff of zfs-linux. Actually zfs-linux (= 0.7.12-2+deb10u1, buster) have no problem to build atop spl-linux (= 0.7.12-2, buster) or (= 0.7.12-2+deb10u1, s-p-u); while zfs-linux (= 0.7.12-2+deb10u2, s-p-u) will FTBFS atop spl-linux (= 0.7.12-2, buster) In that sense we'd better deal with spl-linux and zfs-linux synchronously. > Regards, > > Adam
Bug#956890: buster-pu: package zfs-linux/0.7.12-2+deb10u2
On Wed, 2020-04-22 at 05:21 +, Mo Zhou wrote: > The whole fix involes two parts: a part goes to src:zfs-linux and the > other goes to src:spl-linux. Now that the updated src:spl-linux is > already uploaded, and I'm now asking for the permission to upload the > updated src:zfs-linux. Which includes two upstream commits fixing > potential deadlock issues. What happens if a user tries using the current spl-dkms with the newer zfs-dkms, or vice versa? Regards, Adam
Bug#956890: buster-pu: package zfs-linux/0.7.12-2+deb10u2
On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 03:40:09PM +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > Control: tags -1 + moreinfo > Control: tags 956889 + moreinfo > > On Thu, 2020-04-16 at 11:26 +, Mo Zhou wrote: > > (please explain the reason for this update here) > > > > We need to cherry-pick two patches in order to fix a deadlock issue > > for zfs > > https://github.com/openzfs/zfs/commit/98bb45e27ae80145a6ce028df90fccdb23f8901d > > https://github.com/openzfs/zfs/commit/01937958ce85b1cd8942dbaf9a3f9768c5b02a0a > > > > And the two patches have to be used in conjunction with a patch for > > src:spl-linux > > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=932251 > > (I'm uploading shortly) > > I'm afraid I'm slightly confused here. > > You've filed two copies of this bug, with slightly different content. Please ignore the result of a mutt crash. > Neither of them has a proposed diff attached, and they both claim to be see attached debdiff. > requesting updates for the "zfs-linux" package, but the upload you've > made is for the "spl-linux" package, for which there appears to be no > p-u bug. The whole fix involes two parts: a part goes to src:zfs-linux and the other goes to src:spl-linux. Now that the updated src:spl-linux is already uploaded, and I'm now asking for the permission to upload the updated src:zfs-linux. Which includes two upstream commits fixing potential deadlock issues. > Please could you clarify? > > Regards, > > Adam > diff -Nru zfs-linux-0.7.12/debian/changelog zfs-linux-0.7.12/debian/changelog --- zfs-linux-0.7.12/debian/changelog 2019-06-09 11:17:40.0 +0800 +++ zfs-linux-0.7.12/debian/changelog 2020-04-22 13:14:27.0 +0800 @@ -1,3 +1,11 @@ +zfs-linux (0.7.12-2+deb10u2) buster; urgency=medium + + * Cherry-pick two upstream patches to fix potential deadlock issues. ++ 01937958ce85b1cd8942dbaf9a3f9768c5b02a0a ++ 98bb45e27ae80145a6ce028df90fccdb23f8901d + + -- Mo Zhou Wed, 22 Apr 2020 13:14:27 +0800 + zfs-linux (0.7.12-2+deb10u1) testing-proposed-updates; urgency=high * Patch: Disable SIMD on 4.19.37+ or 5.0+ kernels. (Closes: #929929) diff -Nru zfs-linux-0.7.12/debian/patches/01937958ce85b1cd8942dbaf9a3f9768c5b02a0a.patch zfs-linux-0.7.12/debian/patches/01937958ce85b1cd8942dbaf9a3f9768c5b02a0a.patch --- zfs-linux-0.7.12/debian/patches/01937958ce85b1cd8942dbaf9a3f9768c5b02a0a.patch 1970-01-01 08:00:00.0 +0800 +++ zfs-linux-0.7.12/debian/patches/01937958ce85b1cd8942dbaf9a3f9768c5b02a0a.patch 2020-04-22 13:11:49.0 +0800 @@ -0,0 +1,327 @@ +From 01937958ce85b1cd8942dbaf9a3f9768c5b02a0a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 +From: Matthew Ahrens +Date: Thu, 31 May 2018 10:29:12 -0700 +Subject: [PATCH] OpenZFS 9577 - remove zfs_dbuf_evict_key tsd + +The zfs_dbuf_evict_key TSD (thread-specific data) is not necessary - +we can instead pass a flag down in a few places to prevent recursive +dbuf eviction. Making this change has 3 benefits: + +1. The code semantics are easier to understand. +2. On Linux, performance is improved, because creating/removing + TSD values (by setting to NULL vs non-NULL) is expensive, and + we do it very often. +3. According to Nexenta, the current semantics can cause a + deadlock when concurrently calling dmu_objset_evict_dbufs() + (which is rare today, but they are working on a "parallel + unmount" change that triggers this more easily): + +Porting Notes: +* Minor conflict with OpenZFS 9337 which has not yet been ported. + +Authored by: Matthew Ahrens +Reviewed by: George Wilson +Reviewed by: Serapheim Dimitropoulos +Reviewed by: Brad Lewis +Reviewed-by: George Melikov +Ported-by: Brian Behlendorf + +OpenZFS-issue: https://illumos.org/issues/9577 +OpenZFS-commit: https://github.com/openzfs/openzfs/pull/645 +External-issue: DLPX-58547 +Closes #7602 +--- + include/sys/dbuf.h | 4 +-- + include/sys/dnode.h | 4 +-- + module/zfs/dbuf.c | 69 ++--- + module/zfs/dnode.c | 7 +++-- + module/zfs/dnode_sync.c | 17 -- + 5 files changed, 46 insertions(+), 55 deletions(-) + +diff --git a/include/sys/dbuf.h b/include/sys/dbuf.h +index 127acad33c7..e007e97644e 100644 +--- a/include/sys/dbuf.h b/include/sys/dbuf.h +@@ -20,7 +20,7 @@ + */ + /* + * Copyright (c) 2005, 2010, Oracle and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved. +- * Copyright (c) 2012, 2015 by Delphix. All rights reserved. ++ * Copyright (c) 2012, 2018 by Delphix. All rights reserved. + * Copyright (c) 2013 by Saso Kiselkov. All rights reserved. + * Copyright (c) 2014 Spectra Logic Corporation, All rights reserved. + */ +@@ -294,7 +294,7 @@ boolean_t dbuf_try_add_ref(dmu_buf_t *db, objset_t *os, uint64_t obj, + uint64_t dbuf_refcount(dmu_buf_impl_t *db); + + void dbuf_rele(dmu_buf_impl_t *db, void *tag); +-void dbuf_rele_and_unlock(dmu_buf_impl_t *db, void *tag); ++void dbuf_rele_and_unlock(dmu_buf_impl_t *db, void *tag, boolean_t evicting); + + dmu_buf_impl_t *dbuf_find(struct objset *os, uint64_t object, uin
Bug#956890: buster-pu: package zfs-linux/0.7.12-2+deb10u2
Control: tags -1 + moreinfo Control: tags 956889 + moreinfo On Thu, 2020-04-16 at 11:26 +, Mo Zhou wrote: > (please explain the reason for this update here) > > We need to cherry-pick two patches in order to fix a deadlock issue > for zfs > https://github.com/openzfs/zfs/commit/98bb45e27ae80145a6ce028df90fccdb23f8901d > https://github.com/openzfs/zfs/commit/01937958ce85b1cd8942dbaf9a3f9768c5b02a0a > > And the two patches have to be used in conjunction with a patch for > src:spl-linux > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=932251 > (I'm uploading shortly) I'm afraid I'm slightly confused here. You've filed two copies of this bug, with slightly different content. Neither of them has a proposed diff attached, and they both claim to be requesting updates for the "zfs-linux" package, but the upload you've made is for the "spl-linux" package, for which there appears to be no p-u bug. Please could you clarify? Regards, Adam
Bug#956890: buster-pu: package zfs-linux/0.7.12-2+deb10u2
Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal Tags: buster User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: pu (please explain the reason for this update here) We need to cherry-pick two patches in order to fix a deadlock issue for zfs https://github.com/openzfs/zfs/commit/98bb45e27ae80145a6ce028df90fccdb23f8901d https://github.com/openzfs/zfs/commit/01937958ce85b1cd8942dbaf9a3f9768c5b02a0a And the two patches have to be used in conjunction with a patch for src:spl-linux https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=932251 (I'm uploading shortly) -- System Information: Debian Release: bullseye/sid APT prefers unstable APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (500, 'testing'), (1, 'experimental') Architecture: amd64 (x86_64) Foreign Architectures: i386 Kernel: Linux 5.5.0-1-amd64 (SMP w/8 CPU cores) Kernel taint flags: TAINT_PROPRIETARY_MODULE, TAINT_OOT_MODULE, TAINT_UNSIGNED_MODULE Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8), LANGUAGE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /usr/bin/dash Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system) LSM: AppArmor: enabled
