On Fri, Mar 18, 2022 at 10:14:03AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote: > So I'm not clear on where we're at with this patch vs. something that > moves (or drops) the wb wait loop vs. the wait and set thing (which > seems more invasive and longer term), but FWIW.. this patch survived > over 10k iterations of the reproducer test yesterday (the problem > typically reproduces in ~1k or so iterations on average) and an > overnight fstests run without regression. Excellent! I'm going to propose these two patches for -rc1 (I don't think we want to be playing with this after -rc8). I agree the wait-and-set approach is a little further out. (patches attached)
