From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mgamail.intel.com (mgamail.intel.com [198.175.65.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 264B0146D63 for ; Thu, 13 Jun 2024 13:24:40 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.175.65.11 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1718285082; cv=none; b=R32ckFqLrAiBXLrtaYVLnPdgqKkRIi02AFBxHhAMMRJqU07gW2FgzMnYNKC+ZXNlRop25csuE8Wj47zXGF3Z1RhB3NAvic5EonN7f7M5XtHPf62LXdC2DbrRj+Bm9yVlqfBn9QQcAwOoN1QlDLQrIIuiDJaAhCBD3uVlNWImEPc= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1718285082; c=relaxed/simple; bh=ySegQrairJfhO4YYau/ebmXMZo+IEEBMoSaDBSymczI=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=KwVfVHDkXwGBAHFvP3SCTPtWH7ypTEwVG5RpDTm9nbTFAJHhczs5T9swn+BojS0JfLLbUF89CGXL5A2k2+KQ0OMv52uRk7s+PvT2m5Jxt1QTrGWAp5BaxXt3utq4QVJsDSLHHU+lcBVfHbzDEF/S3/CC3ogaYvcl1YtLDbLhnjk= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.intel.com; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux.intel.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b=DaWUrXsr; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.175.65.11 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux.intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b="DaWUrXsr" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1718285081; x=1749821081; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:in-reply-to: references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=ySegQrairJfhO4YYau/ebmXMZo+IEEBMoSaDBSymczI=; b=DaWUrXsrSy+t4/lX8W5aJnJm34CAC4D3RP0CXo67xW/dS+BDpQZ1eBtd /Bgz31deK4L2bHo1YG5UB478J/Fr9JriIklnKaDi6eXoFk3mgOOih5kwf RMEANV5DyJd26JFDuTs/1aJhTNH6YvLrUxjH2bnLnQQlLtsEl6/aRySIy Dlka83AaBhIfbZooeyLuKGx6xMCL4aFFDOvnpPS/cD1V9l/UFbUo8ly/V JxKfpYMrFJzS2QBXleUqvRzQTDNyj23R4m6J5yRztaXnjSckeZjBw6DBP HAuqQjhl+VQlPT5enXZHu5l3yInVseZKoKLWeMLoC1ziag7WULNAxGlR2 w==; X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: mDxVCeqGTiqzqW9BcQuV8w== X-CSE-MsgGUID: F4QhUvKESlmwutHBUbRhIQ== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6700,10204,11101"; a="25682527" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.08,235,1712646000"; d="scan'208";a="25682527" Received: from orviesa005.jf.intel.com ([10.64.159.145]) by orvoesa103.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 13 Jun 2024 06:24:40 -0700 X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: P+FbNYKbQkyf+i9O6y54lg== X-CSE-MsgGUID: 1G4GiiIERECcwt2VFtCdow== X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.08,235,1712646000"; d="scan'208";a="45088959" Received: from mtkaczyk-mobl.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO localhost) ([10.245.112.252]) by orviesa005-auth.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 13 Jun 2024 06:24:39 -0700 Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2024 15:24:34 +0200 From: Mariusz Tkaczyk To: Logan Gunthorpe Cc: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org, Jes Sorensen , Xiao Ni , Guoqing Jiang Subject: Re: [PATCH mdadm 0/2] Bug fixes for --write-zeros option Message-ID: <20240613152434.0000633e@linux.intel.com> In-Reply-To: <20240604163837.798219-1-logang@deltatee.com> References: <20240604163837.798219-1-logang@deltatee.com> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 4.1.0 (GTK 3.24.33; x86_64-w64-mingw32) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Tue, 4 Jun 2024 10:38:35 -0600 Logan Gunthorpe wrote: > Hi, > > Xiao noticed that the write-zeros tests failed randomly, especially > with small disks. We tracked this down to an issue with signalfd which > coallesced SIGCHLD signals into one. This is fixed by checking the > status of all children after every SIGCHLD. > > While we were at it, we noticed a potential reace with SIGCHLD coming > in before the signal was blocked in wait_for_zero_forks() and fix this > by moving the blocking before the child creation. > > Thanks, > > Logan > > -- Applied! Thanks, Mariusz