On 11/24/19 12:49 AM, Pedro Ribeiro wrote: > > > On 24/11/2019 01:26, Eric Sandeen wrote: > >> I haven't looked very closely at your config deltas for what might change >> alignment but it'd be worth giving: >> >> f8f9ee479439 xfs: add kmem_alloc_io() >> d916275aa4dd xfs: get allocation alignment from the buftarg >> 0ad95687c3ad xfs: add kmem allocation trace points >> >> a try. >> >> -Eric > > Hi Eric, > > That did the trick. Took me some time to resolve the rejects, but now > 5.3.11 and 5.3.12 work like a charm. > > While trying to track down the patches, I found your reply here: > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1762596 > > I ended up applying: > f8f9ee479439 xfs: add kmem_alloc_io() > d916275aa4dd xfs: get allocation alignment from the buftarg > 0ad95687c3ad xfs: add kmem allocation trace points > > And I don't know why at the time (I was sleepy), I ended up applying > this one too: > xfs: assure zeroed memory buffers for certain kmem allocations that one's not needed for this problem. > I had to remove the second argument to kmem_alloc_io when applying this > last one, as kmem_alloc_io had two arguments in the 5.3.12 tree + those > 3 patches above, instead of three arguments in the actual patch: Hm that doesn't make sense; f8f9ee479439 introduces kmem_alloc_io with 3 arguments. 2 arguments to kmem_alloc_io, missing the alignment mask, would be a problem. > return kmem_alloc_io(BBTOB(nbblks), align_mask, KM_MAYFAIL | KM_ZERO); > return kmem_alloc_io(BBTOB(nbblks), KM_MAYFAIL | KM_ZERO); > > Do you think it's safe to keep these 4 patches on top of the 5.3.12 > tree? So far it all looks fine, filesystems mount and work fine. Yes, but ... they should probably be applied correctly. A quick test here seems to show the three I suggested apply to 5.3.12 cleanly. -Eric
