On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 4:17 PM Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, 22 Aug 2019 16:11:15 -0700 Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 3:21 PM Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, 21 Aug 2019 11:26:25 +0800 Joseph Qi <joseph.qi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > Only when calling the poll syscall the first time can user > > > > receive POLLPRI correctly. After that, user always fails to > > > > acquire the event signal. > > > > > > > > Reproduce case: > > > > 1. Get the monitor code in Documentation/accounting/psi.txt > > > > 2. Run it, and wait for the event triggered. > > > > 3. Kill and restart the process. > > > > > > > > The question is why we can end up with poll_scheduled = 1 but the work > > > > not running (which would reset it to 0). And the answer is because the > > > > scheduling side sees group->poll_kworker under RCU protection and then > > > > schedules it, but here we cancel the work and destroy the worker. The > > > > cancel needs to pair with resetting the poll_scheduled flag. > > > > > > Should this be backported into -stable kernels? > > > > Adding GregKH and stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > > I was able to cleanly apply this patch to stable master and > > linux-5.2.y branches (these are the only branches that have psi > > triggers). > > Greg, Andrew got this patch into -mm tree. Please advise on how we > > should proceed to land it in stable 5.2.y and master. > > That isn't the point - we know how to merge patches ;) > > What I'm asking is whether it is desirable that -stable kernels have > this patch. It certainly sounds like it from the changelog, so I'm > wondering if the omission of cc:stable was intentional? Sorry for my misunderstanding. I believe cc:stable omission was unintentional. It's a fix for a bug which exists in stable branches I mentioned above. Thanks!
