Re: [PATCH v2] xfs: preserve i_rdev when recycling a reclaimable inode

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 11:50 PM, Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 04:33:15PM +0200, Amir Goldstein wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 3:11 PM, Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx> wrote:
>> > On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 02:46:09PM +0200, Amir Goldstein wrote:
>> >> OK, found the patches the fix soft lockups in generic/269 and
>> >> assertion in generic/232, so expunging those 2 tests from v4.15.y
>> >> test runs.
>> >
>> > Which patches are those?  We should probably backport them to 4.15-stable.
>>
>> Probably, but I guess Darrick has those in his TODO.
>>
>> There is this series that refers to failure in generic/232:
>> https://marc.info/?l=linux-xfs&m=151701545720824&w=2
>>
>> These 2 commits refer to generic/269 specifically in commit message:
>>  70c57dcd606f xfs: skip CoW writes past EOF when writeback races with truncate
>>  be78ff0e7277 xfs: recheck reflink / dirty page status before freeing
>> CoW reservations
>> and the thread on the second commit also mentions generic/270
>> (I found out the hard way that it also soft locks).
>>
>> But there are surely more patches for stable in master.
>> I recon CC: stable and/or Fixes: tags could have been helpful,
>> but I don't see any of those in v4.16-rcX from the core xfs developers.
>
> AS I always say: if you want to maintain a stable backport kernel
> with all the fixes that go into the bleeding edge, you're more than
> welcome to do it.
>
> Everyone else is flat out just keeping up with on going development
> and fixing bugs in the kernel as it's moving forward. So if you have
> the need for stable backports, please keep backporting patches you
> need, testing them and asking the stable maintainers to include
> them.
>

Greg,

I tested the patch in question per Darrick's request.
I found no regressions with full "auto" run on xfs with reflinks enabled.
Please include this patch in stable 4.15.


Dave,

It is often the case, though maybe not always, that the author of a patch
has the knowledge of the 'Fixes' commit and/or the stable kernel version
patch is relevant to or would easily apply to.
It is therefore a relatively low effort for a developer to include
this information
as courtesy to stable maintainers, whether they are maintaining kernel.org
stable kernels or distro stable kernels.

That's just my opinion.

Christoph/Darrick,

FYI, with stable kernel 4.15.y, I found the following failures with -g auto:

Assert (mostly on quota related):
generic/232 xfs/222 xfs/305 xfs/440 xfs/442

Soft lockup (likely fixed by be78ff0e7277):
generic/269 generic/270 xfs/442

Failures (output mismatch):
xfs/170 xfs/191-input-validation xfs/348

Thanks,
Amir.



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel]     [Kernel Development Newbies]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Hiking]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]