[LU-5022] support for 3.10 rhel7 linux kernel Created: 07/May/14 Updated: 15/Jun/15 Resolved: 15/Jun/15 |
|
| Status: | Resolved |
| Project: | Lustre |
| Component/s: | None |
| Affects Version/s: | Lustre 2.6.0 |
| Fix Version/s: | Lustre 2.8.0 |
| Type: | New Feature | Priority: | Critical |
| Reporter: | Bob Glossman (Inactive) | Assignee: | Bob Glossman (Inactive) |
| Resolution: | Fixed | Votes: | 0 |
| Labels: | HB | ||
| Environment: |
rhel7 |
||
| Attachments: |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Issue Links: |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Rank (Obsolete): | 13898 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Description |
|
tracker for 3.10 kernel support in rhel7 The 3.10 kernel in the rhel7 rc2 image is quite different from the mainline upstream 3.10 in kernel.org. It includes many features from 3.12 and even 3.13 kernels. In general most of the recipe mentioned in Establishing a separate tracker that will be specific to rhel7 as there are some mods that will only be relevant to the rhel7 kernel, and not 3.12 or later. One example is ldiskfs support. A new patch series specific to rhel7 will be needed. |
| Comments |
| Comment by Bob Glossman (Inactive) [ 07/May/14 ] |
|
ldiskfs support for RHEL7: Note that this patch series is majority identical to the one in progress for SLES 12. Only a few patches needed adjustment. Most applied cleanly unchanged. I am pushing them in their current form hoping to get some early review and comment from ldiskfs/ext4 experts. |
| Comment by James A Simmons [ 07/May/14 ] |
|
Oh boy!! I really like to see a base 3.12 ldisk set used by the major distros. We now have RHEL7, SLES12, and FCXX ( |
| Comment by Bob Glossman (Inactive) [ 07/May/14 ] |
|
I'm pretty sure the ones for FCxx in I would have no objection to structuring ldiskfs series as a reference set for upstream 3.12 with the SLES12 and RHEL7 versions being variations off of that reference. Maybe support for the 3.14 kernel in fc20 could also be off that same reference set, although I have yet to investigate that possibility. |
| Comment by James A Simmons [ 07/May/14 ] |
|
Great!! I think the 3.12 baseline patch set is the way to go. I plan to update the |
| Comment by James A Simmons [ 16/Jul/14 ] |
|
Yang can you post your RHEL7 test results. I like to compare them to my results from the SLES12/3.12 runs I do. |
| Comment by Bob Glossman (Inactive) [ 19/Jul/14 ] |
|
minimum additional needed to build el7 servers: http://review.whamcloud.com/#/c/8116 - e2fsprogs and lbuild changes for el7 server are still TBD. |
| Comment by Bob Glossman (Inactive) [ 13/Oct/14 ] |
|
lbuild changes for rhel 7 server |
| Comment by James A Simmons [ 03/Nov/14 ] |
|
Now that the client work is done we should really discuss what is needed for proper server side support. This is are chance to push for a pathless server. First we need the quota performance enhancements. Those have been merged upstream as: commit b9ba6f94b2382ef832f97122976b73004f714714 Which should engage RedHat to have these merged into their tree. We need to replace the dev_read_only patch with the work under The bh_lru_size patch. I saw something go upstream but it seems to have been drop. It is a simple one line patch which we should push to get merged. Once merged it will be easy for RedHat to incorporate it into their tree. The block tunable patch. From the data posted in Lastly we have the patch under |
| Comment by James A Simmons [ 03/Nov/14 ] |
|
Oh I forgot but since SLES12 is now official we should make the RHEL7 ldiskfs patch use the patches from the |
| Comment by Minh Diep [ 07/Nov/14 ] |
|
A closer look at the report, this patch hit a LBUG in https://testing.hpdd.intel.com/test_logs/16c19292-658a-11e4-8c86-5254006e85c2/show_text |
| Comment by Gerrit Updater [ 15/Nov/14 ] |
|
Yang Sheng (yang.sheng@intel.com) uploaded a new patch: http://review.whamcloud.com/10249 |
| Comment by Gerrit Updater [ 15/Dec/14 ] |
|
Yang Sheng (yang.sheng@intel.com) uploaded a new patch: http://review.whamcloud.com/13067 |
| Comment by Gerrit Updater [ 17/Mar/15 ] |
|
Oleg Drokin (oleg.drokin@intel.com) merged in patch http://review.whamcloud.com/10249/ |
| Comment by James A Simmons [ 19/Mar/15 ] |
|
Here are the quota upstream patches that the RHEL7 kernel needs. It might need some massaging to have it apply to the RHEL7 kernel. |
| Comment by Bob Glossman (Inactive) [ 19/Mar/15 ] |
|
I am pretty sure all the needed changes from James' attachment are already in place in upstream quota code in el7. only 2 minor exceptions: 1) the dqptr_sem deleted by the first patch still exists. all the references to it are gone, but the data structure was left in place. I'm assuming whoever ported this into el7 did it deliberately so I'm not willing to change it. 2) the last patch adding in locking around the shrinker doesn't seem to apply or be relevant. there is no dqcache_shrink_scan() routine in el7 to be fixed up. |
| Comment by James A Simmons [ 19/Mar/15 ] |
|
That is good news. So it looks like we don't need the quota patch. Will need to look into SuSE12 to see if it is case there. |
| Comment by Bob Glossman (Inactive) [ 19/Mar/15 ] |
|
James, I will do so as time permits. |
| Comment by James A Simmons [ 19/Mar/15 ] |
|
Have you considered dropping the block tunable patch? |
| Comment by Bob Glossman (Inactive) [ 20/Mar/15 ] |
|
no. as far as I can tell block tunable is still needed. until it can be deleted from old distros I don't think it should be deleted from el7. |
| Comment by Li Xi (Inactive) [ 29/Mar/15 ] |
|
It seems lbuild-rhel7 is missing in contrib/lbuild/Makefile.am. We should add it in some patch. Maybe http://review.whamcloud.com/#/c/12289/ |
| Comment by Bob Glossman (Inactive) [ 29/Mar/15 ] |
|
quite correct. I will add it to the next version of http://review.whamcloud.com/#/c/12289. |
| Comment by Gerrit Updater [ 10/Apr/15 ] |
|
Oleg Drokin (oleg.drokin@intel.com) merged in patch http://review.whamcloud.com/12289/ |
| Comment by James A Simmons [ 15/Jun/15 ] |
|
Bob is this work complete now? |
| Comment by Bob Glossman (Inactive) [ 15/Jun/15 ] |
|
James, As far as I know yes it is complete. |
| Comment by Peter Jones [ 15/Jun/15 ] |
|
Then let's mark it resolved! |