From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tejun Heo Subject: Re: [PATCH block/for-3.3/core] block: an exiting task should be allowed to create io_context Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2012 10:38:42 -0800 Message-ID: <20120105183842.GF18486@google.com> References: <20111228211918.GA3516@google.com> <20120103173500.GB31746@google.com> <20120103175922.GC31746@google.com> <20120103200906.GG31746@google.com> <4F03631C.8080501@kernel.dk> <20120103221301.GH31746@google.com> <20120103223505.GI31746@google.com> <20120105012445.GP31746@google.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Hugh Dickins Cc: Jens Axboe , Shaohua Li , Andrew Morton , Stephen Rothwell , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, LKML , linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org List-Id: linux-next.vger.kernel.org Hello, Hugh. On Thu, Jan 05, 2012 at 10:36:21AM -0800, Hugh Dickins wrote: > I can vouch that it makes the list_debug.c:53 warnings go away: they > used to come in half an hour, but I've run on two machines for 10 > hours so far without seeing any. Yeah, my overnight test is pretty conclusive too. I can usually hit the bug under 30mins without the patch. > And I've not yet seen a cfq-iosched.c:2585 with that patch in; but > those were more elusive - we'll have to run until tomorrow night > before concluding that it makes those go away too. > > Or if you understand the connection between these, and would prefer > to assume that it fixes them both, and want me to try another patch > instead (I assume the one I'm running with is a workaround to narrow > down the issue, rather than an intended fix?), let me know and I'll > switch over. Yeap, I can see the connections now and think I know where the bug is too. I'll, hopefully, be able to post fix soon. Thanks. -- tejun