On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 6:44 PM Darrick J. Wong <djwong@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 12:47:30PM +0300, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> > Darrick,
> >
> > These are the patches we discussed that Leah requested for the 5.15.y
> > backport of non-blocking inodegc pushes series [1].
> >
> > They may or may not help the 5.15.y -> 6.1.y regression that was
> > reported by Chris [2].
> >
> > Note that I did not include:
> > 2d5f38a31980 ("xfs: disable reaping in fscounters scrub")
> > in this backport set, because I generally do not want to deal with
> > backporting fixes for experimental features.
>
> I don't agree with this decision because the comment for
> xfs_inodegc_stop now says that callers must hold s_umount.
> xchk_stop_reaping definitely does /not/ hold that lock, which means it's
> now buggy. Someone downstream could be using scrub, even if it's still
> experimental.
>
> I've generally said not to bother with scrub fixes, but I don't think
> it's correct to introduce a bug in an LTS kernel. Please backport
> 2d5f38a31980 since all it does is removes the offending call and turns
> off code in fscounters.c.
>
Makes sense.
Will do.
Thanks,
Amir.
