From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from aserp1050.oracle.com ([141.146.126.70]:45845 "EHLO aserp1050.oracle.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751777AbdBIJ5P (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Feb 2017 04:57:15 -0500 Received: from aserp1040.oracle.com (aserp1040.oracle.com [141.146.126.69]) by aserp1050.oracle.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2) with ESMTP id v197sWiX011619 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2017 07:54:32 GMT Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2017 23:53:22 -0800 From: "Darrick J. Wong" Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] xfs: allocate direct I/O COW blocks in iomap_begin Message-ID: <20170209075322.GA6824@birch.djwong.org> References: <20170206074738.13978-1-hch@lst.de> <20170206074738.13978-5-hch@lst.de> <20170207014149.GE12378@birch.djwong.org> <20170209072107.GA6134@lst.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170209072107.GA6134@lst.de> Sender: linux-xfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: List-Id: xfs To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Feb 09, 2017 at 08:21:07AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Mon, Feb 06, 2017 at 05:41:49PM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > I'm going to run this series (and all the other stuff I've collected for > > 4.11) overnight and if nothing screams then you can consider this series: > > Can you push your tree out? I'd like to verify what made it before > heading off for a long weekend tonight. I'm especially curious if > the discard work made it. It's very late tonight, so all the shiny polish is missing, but here's what's in my tree for 4.11 right now: https://git.kernel.org/cgit/fs/xfs/xfs-linux.git/log/?h=xfs-4.11-merge-20170208 Testing isn't done yet, but xfs/222 seems to be blowing up at ASSERT(!rwsem_is_locked(&inode->i_rwsem)) in xfs_super.c fairly consistently with blocksize=1k. I haven't been able to reproduce it quickly (i.e. without running the whole test suite) so I can't tell if that's a side effect of something else blowing up or what. generic/300 seems to blow up periodically and then blows the same assert on umount, also in the 1k case. xfs/348 fuzzes the fs, causes "kernel memory exposure!" BUGs and then asserts with the same i_rwsem thing. The all-defaults 4k blocksize test runs w/ regular disk and pmem all finished without any new fireworks, though. (You'll note I didn't merge the duplicate "xfs: improve handling of busy extents in the low-level allocator"; if you want that done, please let me know.) --D