From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jens Axboe Subject: Re: [PATCH -next v3 0/3] blk-cgroup: make sure pd_free_fn() is called in order Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2023 14:48:50 -0700 Message-ID: <7f3221eb-d5c1-5018-cdcc-979d436fa386@kernel.dk> References: <20230119110350.2287325-1-yukuai1@huaweicloud.com> <0ddce9e4-d027-0bb0-d260-093ccc4c2d4d@huaweicloud.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-path: DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel-dk.20210112.gappssmtp.com; s=20210112; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:references:cc:to :content-language:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=3orRjVyl8TlIILy5P9DmDDw4aLYfFk+iiK2J9hLXKM8=; b=K1fLjf+3hEV58xhvHFnsNkPRmfFbB/yPlBUiSkM2CGxnZWzGSqtk3KPkx/ha0qH3ZL UKBWyX3E+s/0xU9Zz8QEPIxguy8r0W4uChf90dCI7oDJs7z6Xit2L4Ta5Xze4aK5G7tv FOsD3TnzR8xOKdHZEO4CsX2VJFgrAz5On4sCtcTX21R/BUdUqP0BMQ3GZNfUpClv8w4J xWlqFlMyL2XxrVsk/HOj/vTQrXWSJwPmqqgCiOqy/yPTe8WtXA5FWBlcar420KcW7b/o gdPKdWaDk9ql92NcXajcU66E8LOcwnb3ynt0bPiEOJ7CuBm/IzYAQVKhHDDRheSz+Lav ESxg== Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <0ddce9e4-d027-0bb0-d260-093ccc4c2d4d@huaweicloud.com> List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" To: Yu Kuai , tj@kernel.org, hch@lst.de, josef@toxicpanda.com Cc: cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, yi.zhang@huawei.com, yangerkun@huawei.com, "yukuai (C)" On 1/28/23 11:06 PM, Yu Kuai wrote: > Hi, Jens > > 在 2023/01/20 2:54, Jens Axboe 写道: >> On 1/19/23 4:03 AM, Yu Kuai wrote: >>> From: Yu Kuai >>> >>> Changes in v3: >>>   - add ack tag from Tejun for patch 1,2 >>>   - as suggested by Tejun, update commit message and comments in patch 3 >>> >>> The problem was found in iocost orignally([1]) that ioc can be freed in >>> ioc_pd_free(). And later we found that there are more problem in >>> iocost([2]). >>> >>> After some discussion, as suggested by Tejun([3]), we decide to fix the >>> problem that parent pd can be freed before child pd in cgroup layer >>> first. And the problem in [1] will be fixed later if this patchset is >>> applied. >> >> Doesn't apply against for-6.3/block (or linux-next or my for-next, for >> that matter). Can you resend a tested one against for-6.3/block? >> > > This is weird, I just test latest linux-next, and I can apply this > patchset on the top of following commit: > > For latest for-6.3/block, this patch 2 can't be applied because > following commit is not here: > > e3ff8887e7db blk-cgroup: fix missing pd_online_fn() while activating policy > > But this patch is already merged into 6.2-rc5. Since I have one more conflict, I think we'll just rebase for-6.3/block when -rc6 is out, and then it should apply cleanly. -- Jens Axboe