On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 03:12:16PM -0500, Mark Tinguely wrote: > On 09/05/12 06:32, Mel Gorman wrote: > >On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 02:17:42PM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > >>On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 03:01:38PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > >>>From: Mel Gorman<mgorman@xxxxxxx> > >>> > >>>Upstream commit: 94054fa3fca1fd78db02cb3d68d5627120f0a1d4 > >>> > >>>Direct reclaim should never writeback pages. For now, handle the > >>>situation and warn about it. Ultimately, this will be a BUG_ON. > >> > >>Is this actually the case on 3.0-stable? > >> > > > >No, it is not. AFAIK, 3.0-stable does not contain [ee72886d: mm: vmscan: > >do not writeback filesystem pages in direct reclaim] which is the absolute > >minimum required for commit [94054fa3: xfs: warn if direct reclaim tries > >to writeback pages] to make sense. > > > > I hit this warning testing on a linux-30.42 with a x86_64. > Just to be clear, this was linux 3.0.42 with this series of patches applied on top, right? > WARNING: at fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_aops.c:961 xfs_vm_writepage+0x63c/0x6a0() > Hardware name: S2721-533 Thunder i7501 Pro > Modules linked in: ext4 jbd2 crc16 > Pid: 12122, comm: cp Not tainted 3.0.42 #2 I ask because on 3.0.42 this warning is not present. This patch should not be merged to 3.0-stable. -- Mel Gorman SUSE Labs _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
