Skip to content

linuxPackages: 4.19 -> 5.4 #78713

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom
Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Jan 31, 2020
Merged

linuxPackages: 4.19 -> 5.4 #78713

merged 2 commits into from
Jan 31, 2020
+8 −1

Conversation

vcunat
Copy link
Member

@vcunat vcunat commented Jan 28, 2020

Motivation for this change

It's a longterm version that has been out for quite some time:
5.4.15 and 5.5 are current. I've been using it, so far I'm not aware
of any issues with it.

Feature freeze for the next NixOS release is in two weeks,
so now seems to be high time to decide the default kernel version.
https://discourse.nixos.org/t/nixos-20-03-feature-freeze/5655

Things done
  • Tested using sandboxing (nix.useSandbox on NixOS, or option sandbox in nix.conf on non-NixOS linux)
  • Built on platform(s)
    • NixOS
    • N/A macOS
    • N/A other Linux distributions
  • (a few) Tested via one or more NixOS test(s) if existing and applicable for the change (look inside nixos/tests)
  • Tested compilation of all pkgs that depend on this change using nix-shell -p nixpkgs-review --run "nixpkgs-review wip"
  • Tested running NixOS with it.
    Tested execution of all binary files (usually in ./result/bin/)
  • Determined the impact on package closure size (by running nix path-info -S before and after)
  • Ensured that relevant documentation is up to date FIXME: if we agree with this, fixup release notes and possibly other docs.
  • Fits CONTRIBUTING.md.

Sorry, something went wrong.

@vcunat
linuxPackages: 4.19 -> 5.4
3aa308a 
It's a longterm version that has been out for quite some time:
5.4.15 and 5.5 are current.  I've been using it, so far I'm not aware
of any issues with it.

Feature freeze for the next NixOS release is in two weeks,
so now seems to be high time to decide the default kernel version.
https://discourse.nixos.org/t/nixos-20-03-feature-freeze/5655
@vcunat
Copy link
Member Author

vcunat commented Jan 28, 2020

I suppose we should be good even if we stick with 4.19 for 20.03. Details: EOL for 4.19 on the web is only Dec 2020, but it seems likely to get extended (I think I have seen that somewhere) and that 20.03 is planned to EOL before that anyway.

@nixos-discourse
Copy link

This pull request has been mentioned on NixOS Discourse. There might be relevant details there:

https://discourse.nixos.org/t/nixos-20-03-feature-freeze/5655/6

@vcunat vcunat added the 9.needs: changelog This PR needs a changelog entry label Jan 28, 2020
@vcunat vcunat added this to the 20.03 milestone Jan 28, 2020
@mweinelt
Copy link
Member

I haven't had issues with the 5.4 series so far either, so I'd be happy if we could pick that, especially since it provides support for Intels AX200 wifi cards, present in most newer laptops.

@jonringer
Copy link
Contributor

I've been using 5.4 as well, and haven't experienced any issues.

@wkral
Copy link
Contributor

wkral commented Jan 28, 2020

I'll add that I've had no problems with the 5.4 kernel on my laptop. In fact I've been using linuxPackages_latest for some time since the 4.20 kernel had some updates that benefited my hardware. So I think this update would help folks with newer hardware.

@ofborg ofborg bot removed the 6.topic: kernel The Linux kernel label Jan 28, 2020
@Frostman
Copy link
Member

Frostman commented Jan 28, 2020 •
edited
Loading

I'm running 5.4.x in my homelab (w/ ZFS) since the end of December without any issues.

@ofborg ofborg bot added 8.has: package (new) This PR adds a new package 10.rebuild-darwin: 0 This PR does not cause any packages to rebuild on Darwin 10.rebuild-linux: 101-500 labels Jan 28, 2020
fpletz
fpletz approved these changes Jan 28, 2020
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@fpletz fpletz left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

My AMD-based laptop only works with 5.0+ kernels and 5.4 finally fixed some lockups that could otherwise only mitigated with some weird kernel parameters.

Also have been running latest on different hardware and environment for quite some time. 👍

samueldr
samueldr approved these changes Jan 28, 2020
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@samueldr samueldr left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I was going to do the same, ensure we stick with the "current latest LTS at the moment of release" we've been doing.

Ma27
Ma27 reviewed Jan 28, 2020
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@Ma27 Ma27 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Just wanted to point out 5.4 behaves weird when using VRFs (just run the test from #78476 with linuxPackages_5_4). Apart from that, the kernel seems perfectly fine, using it on several setups, so overall 👍

@andir
Copy link
Member

andir commented Jan 28, 2020

@Ma27

Just wanted to point out 5.4 behaves weird when using VRFs (just run the test from #78476 with linuxPackages_5_4).

If this is the same thing that @WilliButz showed me in Munich then you should probably file an upstream kernel issue about it.

Besides that I am also in favor of upgrading to this kernel as it has been working flawlessly on my systems for a while now.

@Ma27
Copy link
Member

Ma27 commented Jan 28, 2020

Yeah, I remeber that debugging session and I'm fairly certain that this is related. Let's see qhen I have sufficient time for investigation :)

worldofpeace
worldofpeace approved these changes Jan 28, 2020
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@worldofpeace worldofpeace left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I also think we should do this 👍

cc @disassembler

@worldofpeace worldofpeace mentioned this pull request Jan 28, 2020
Closed
10 tasks
@worldofpeace
Copy link
Contributor

Ahh I just remembered, there is this bug and I don't think fixes have been backported for it

@yrashk
Copy link
Contributor

yrashk commented Jan 29, 2020

5.4 seems to have random freezes with an Intel (i915) driver. My system seems to be affected

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1780800
https://www.reddit.com/r/archlinux/comments/e7tb8i/intel_i915_random_freeze/
https://www.reddit.com/r/archlinux/comments/ed2ml8/latest_kernel_update_545_makes_my_pc_constantly/
https://linuxreviews.org/Linux_Kernel_5.5_Will_Not_Fix_The_Frequent_Intel_GPU_Hangs_In_Recent_Kernels

@worldofpeace
Copy link
Contributor

5.4 seems to have random freezes with an Intel (i915) driver. My system seems to be affected

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1780800
https://www.reddit.com/r/archlinux/comments/e7tb8i/intel_i915_random_freeze/
https://www.reddit.com/r/archlinux/comments/ed2ml8/latest_kernel_update_545_makes_my_pc_constantly/
https://linuxreviews.org/Linux_Kernel_5.5_Will_Not_Fix_The_Frequent_Intel_GPU_Hangs_In_Recent_Kernels

Yeah, my aforementioned issue I believe is just one of the few mentioned.
The experience for (I believe certain?) Intel integrated GPU users is a problem.

@samueldr
Copy link
Member

(Something I wanted to write way before people chimed in about issues.)

Anyone's pet issue with the latest kernel is irrelevant to the question of changing the default, I believe. The previous LTS, 4.19, is still available. There will always be issues for a subset of users with different kernel versions.

Unless there were egregious regressions or bugs in the newer kernel, waiting until 20.09 is only punting the issue 6 months. There will not be a new LTS to move to in the next 6 months. 4.19 is slated for a December 2020 EOL.

Furthermore, sticking with an older release really hampers adoption on new devices, as new hardware is released, especially on laptops, it often becomes the case we need to point users towards the "new kernel" variant of the ISO.

Though, considering that intel iGPU issue, which I'm pretty sure I faced with 5.2 or 5.3 while test running it, it would be good to list this as an "errata" for the release, or something. It is bound to become a new common grievance.

@lovesegfault
Copy link
Member

I have issues with 5.4.x, some Intel (i915) driver bug that causes a freeze.
c.f. https://gitlab.manjaro.org/packages/core/linux54/issues/5
c.f. https://www.spinics.net/linux/fedora/fedora-users/msg494505.html

@worldofpeace
Copy link
Contributor

(Something I wanted to write way before people chimed in about issues.)

Anyone's pet issue with the latest kernel is irrelevant to the question of changing the default, I believe. The previous LTS, 4.19, is still available. There will always be issues for a subset of users with different kernel versions.

Unless there were egregious regressions or bugs in the newer kernel, waiting until 20.09 is only punting the issue 6 months. There will not be a new LTS to move to in the next 6 months. 4.19 is slated for a December 2020 EOL.

Furthermore, sticking with an older release really hampers adoption on new devices, as new hardware is released, especially on laptops, it often becomes the case we need to point users towards the "new kernel" variant of the ISO.

Though, considering that intel iGPU issue, which I'm pretty sure I faced with 5.2 or 5.3 while test running it, it would be good to list this as an "errata" for the release, or something. It is bound to become a new common grievance.

I agree fully and ref #69687, punting to another release is a practice that will achieve nothing. I'm pretty sure this particular issue is affecting a lot of people so it's really inevitable people to be aware of it, it just shouldn't be a discussion we're having to why we shouldn't upgrade the default. But as you mentioned, something like an errata or anything is needed.

@eadwu
Copy link
Member

eadwu commented Jan 29, 2020

Another guy with iGPU issues with 5.4. Managed to regain a suitable system by disabling picom and while I still get rcs0 hangs sometimes, they all managed to be recovered. But yeah, 5.4 isn't in a really ideal spot for 5.4.

Doesn't look like it'll be fixed in 5.4 currently though. Here's my sources,
https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=250765
https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/intel/issues/673

@nixos-discourse
Copy link

This pull request has been mentioned on NixOS Discourse. There might be relevant details there:

https://discourse.nixos.org/t/go-no-go-meeting-nixos-20-03-markhor/6495/19

@asymmetric
Copy link
Contributor

@worldofpeace should we mention the i915 issues in the release notes?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@Ma27 Ma27

@fpletz fpletz

@samueldr samueldr

@jonringer jonringer

@worldofpeace worldofpeace

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
6.topic: nixos Issues or PRs affecting NixOS modules, or package usability issues specific to NixOS 8.has: changelog 8.has: documentation This PR adds or changes documentation 8.has: package (new) This PR adds a new package 9.needs: changelog This PR needs a changelog entry 9.needs: community feedback 10.rebuild-darwin: 0 This PR does not cause any packages to rebuild on Darwin 10.rebuild-linux: 101-500
Projects
None yet
Milestone
20.03
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet