Public bug reported:
Summary:
Customer is reporting performance degradation from Bluefield Focal 5.4.0-1087
to 5.4.0-1088
They run iperf3 based performance test, and see performance drop around 10-15%.
Test scenarios:
===
1. Baseline: BF - BFB 3.9.8 (OFED Driver 5.8, FW 35.4
Public bug reported:
Summary:
ip6tables --set-xmark failed on 1057.59
A degradation
Working version: 1053.55
bf-bundle-2.9.1-13_24.11_ubuntu-22.04_prod.bfb has kernel
5.15.0-1053.55.24.g9cc17fe-bluefield
root@r-qa-hbn00-host00-00:mgmt:/home/ubuntu# /usr/sbin/ip6tables -t
can we skip the verification?
this needs a very special setup to verify.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2077887
Title:
Backport VFIO P2P patch for BlueField 5.15
To manage notificati
** Tags removed: verification-needed-jammy-linux-bluefield
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2077887
Title:
Backport VFIO P2P patch for BlueField 5.15
To manage notifications about this
bisect shows
# first bad commit: [9c901808b3affa5b21bb146148ae2c39dfd732ee] drivers:
core: synchronize really_probe() and dev_uevent()
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2084479
Title:
C
** Description changed:
* introduction
Found a regression on 5.15.0-1053, which worked OK on 5.15.0-1050
At DPU, when using the 5.15.0-1053-bluefield kernel, when the user-space
process uses the OFED driver to create 2000 of SF devices in a batch mode.
At host side, the ubuntu kernel w
Public bug reported:
* introduction
Found a regression on 5.15.0-1053, which worked OK on 5.15.0-1050
At DPU, when using the 5.15.0-1053-bluefield kernel, when the user-space
process uses the OFED driver to create 2000 of SF devices in a batch mode.
At host side, the ubuntu kernel will prevent t
also backport the two patches
---
net/sched: act_ct: Take per-cb reference to tcf_ct_flow_table
net: sched: call tcf_ct_params_free to free params in tcf_ct_init
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.ne
the original patch series for 6.0 kernel is herhe
https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-rdma/cover/0-v2-472615b3877e+28f7-vfio_dma_buf_...@nvidia.com/
backport to 5.15 upstream kernel (not Bluefield)
https://github.com/torvalds/linux/compare/master...jgunthorpe:linux:for-william
v3 patch has
Public bug reported:
* Intro
Got call trace RIP below, internal bug ID: 4059202
[ 747.269287] WARNING: CPU: 3 PID: 8360 at
include/net/netfilter/nf_flow_table.h:261
mlx5_tc_ct_del_ft_cb.part.0+0x17b/0x1c0 [mlx5_core]
* Solution
Need to backport
"sched: act_ct: take care of padding in struct
** Description changed:
* Summary
Current BF kernel doesn't support VFIO P2P, the following patches need
to backport, based on 6.0 kernel.
1.
https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/kvm/cover/0-v2-1bd95d72f298+e0e-vfio_pci_priv_...@nvidia.com/
2.
https://patchwork.kernel.org/project
Public bug reported:
* Summary
Current BF kernel doesn't support VFIO P2P, the following patches need
to backport, based on 6.0 kernel.
1.
https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/kvm/cover/0-v2-1bd95d72f298+e0e-vfio_pci_priv_...@nvidia.com/
2.
https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/kvm/cover/0-v2-0
** Description changed:
* Explain the bug(s)
We run a simple CPU-only xor application.
+ test.c
+ --
int main(void) {
long i;
int count = 0;
for (i=0; i< 100; i++) {
count = count ^ i;
}
return 0;
}
tested
root@c-237-155-120-p88-00-0-bf2:/boot# diff config-5.15.0-1043-bluefield
config-5.15.0-1044-bluefield
3c3
< # Linux/arm64 5.15.0-1043-bluefield Kernel Configuration
---
> # Linux/arm64 5.15.0-1044-bluefield Kernel Configuration
37c37
< CONFIG_VERSION_SIGNATURE="Ubuntu 5.15.0-1043.45-bluefield 5.15
** Description changed:
* Explain the bug(s)
We run a simple CPU-only xor application.
int main(void) {
- long i;
- int count = 0;
- for (i=0; i< 100; i++) {
- count = count ^ i;
- }
- return 0;
+ long i;
+ in
Public bug reported:
* Explain the bug(s)
We run a simple CPU-only xor application.
int main(void) {
long i;
int count = 0;
for (i=0; i< 100; i++) {
count = count ^ i;
}
return 0;
}
tested on BlueField-2 and found consistent performa
** Description changed:
-
* Explain the bug(s)
We've found regression release Ubuntu-bluefield-5.15.0-1046.48, where
kernel crashes due to NULL pointer deference.
* Regression: Yes
Last working version: Ubuntu-bluefield-5.15.0-1045.47
- There are huge difference between the two
Public bug reported:
* Explain the bug(s)
We've found regression release Ubuntu-bluefield-5.15.0-1046.48, where
kernel crashes due to NULL pointer deference.
* Regression: Yes
Last working version: Ubuntu-bluefield-5.15.0-1045.47
There are huge difference between the two
% git lo Ubuntu-bluef
one of the patch breaks UAPI and need to fix
netdev: expose DPLL pin handle for netdevice
diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/if_link.h b/include/uapi/linux/if_link.h
index 344ca7545679..eb8a50016e6a 100644
--- a/include/uapi/linux/if_link.h
+++ b/include/uapi/linux/if_link.h
@@ -347,7 +347,7 @@ en
Public bug reported:
intro
-
Our internal test triggers a kernel crash dump below
[ 888.690348] Sun Mar 24 23:51:59 2024: DriVerTest - Start Test
[ 888.691834]
[ 888.983912] mlx5_core 00
** Description changed:
Intro:
==
- When hit a kernel warning when using openvswitch kernel module. Digging into
the source code, we found it's due to the code snippet
- if (WARN_ON(i.cmd >= family->resv_start_op &&
-(i.doit.validate || i.dumpit.validate)))
-
Public bug reported:
Intro:
==
When hit a kernel warning when using openvswitch kernel module. Digging into
the source code, we found it's due to the code snippet
if (WARN_ON(i.cmd >= family->resv_start_op &&
(i.doit.validate || i.dumpit.validate)))
Public bug reported:
* intro
In bug 2053155 "Add DPLL and syncE support" below:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux-bluefield/+bug/2053155
It requires using a yaml spec file, dpll.yaml, and a python script, cli.py, to
verify the correctness.
ex:
$ sudo ./tools/net/ynl/cli.py --spec
Public bug reported:
* intro
As IDR can't protect itself from the concurrent modification, place
idr_remove() under the protection of tp->lock.
* how to fix
need to backport the patch from Jianbo
"net/sched: flower: Add lock protection when remove filter handle"
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/lin
24 matches
Mail list logo
