From: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] writeback: fix range_cyclic writeback vs writepages deadlock
Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2018 09:37:21 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20181005233721.GI12041@dastard> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20181005124640.3de2ba9dec8c713ee8cf286b@linux-foundation.org>
On Fri, Oct 05, 2018 at 12:46:40PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Oct 2018 15:45:26 +1000 Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com> wrote:
>
> > From: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com>
> >
> > We've recently seen a workload on XFS filesystems with a repeatable
> > deadlock between background writeback and a multi-process
> > application doing concurrent writes and fsyncs to a small range of a
> > file.
> >
> > ...
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com>
> > Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.de>
>
> Not a serious enough problem for a -stable backport?
Don't have enough evidence to say one way or another. The reported
incident was from a RHEL 7 kernel, so the bug has been there for
years in one form or another, but it's only ever been triggered by
this one-off custom workload.
I haven't done any analysis on older kernels, nor have I looked to see
if there's any gotchas that a stable backport might encounter. And I
tend not to change stuff in a path that is critical to data integrity
without at least doing enough due diligence to suggest a stable
backport would be fine.
You can mark it for stable backports if you want, but I'm not
prepared to because I haven't done the work necessary to ensure it's
safe to do so.
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-10-06 6:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-10-05 5:45 [PATCH] writeback: fix range_cyclic writeback vs writepages deadlock Dave Chinner
2018-10-05 19:46 ` Andrew Morton
2018-10-05 23:37 ` Dave Chinner [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2019-03-26 9:33 Gavin Will
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20181005233721.GI12041@dastard \
--to=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.