On Tue 17-04-18 14:48:35, Amir Goldstein wrote: > On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 1:33 PM, Greg KH <greg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 09:10:35PM +0000, Dexuan Cui wrote: > >> > From: Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx> > >> > Sent: Monday, April 16, 2018 07:41 > >> > ... > >> > How easily can you hit this? Are you able to run debug kernels / inspect > >> > crash dumps when the issue occurs? Also testing with the latest mainline > >> > kernel (4.16) would be welcome whether this isn't just an issue with the > >> > backport of fsnotify fixes from Miklos. > >> > >> It's not easy for us to reproduce the fsnotify() lockup issue, and actually > >> we still don't have an easy & reliable way to reproduce it. > >> > >> According to our tests, v4.16 doesn't have the issue. > >> And v4.15 doesn't have the issue either, if I recall correctly. > >> I only know the issue happens to v4.14.x and 4.13.x kernels > > > > Any chance to run 'git bisect' between 4.14 and 4.15 to find the fix? > > > > Looking at the changes between 4.14 and 4.15, that are not in 4.14.32, > the only viable suspects are: > 9cf90cef362d fsnotify: Protect bail out path of fsnotify_add_mark_locked() > properly > 3427ce715541 fsnotify: clean up fsnotify() > > Both don't claim to fix a known issue. Yeah, and the second one is just a code refactorization and I don't see how the first fix could lead to anything like what's reported. So I don't think picking these to 4.14 stable is really the right solution. We first need to understand what's going wrong. Honza -- Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxxx> SUSE Labs, CR
