From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay2.corp.sgi.com [137.38.102.29]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA36C7CA0 for ; Tue, 31 May 2016 03:03:52 -0500 (CDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda3.sgi.com [192.48.176.15]) by relay2.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF901304048 for ; Tue, 31 May 2016 01:03:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ph.de-nserver.de (mail-ph.de-nserver.de [85.158.179.214]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id IkyzFFumIsy3woNO (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 31 May 2016 01:03:43 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: shrink_active_list/try_to_release_page bug? (was Re: xfs trace in 4.4.2 / also in 4.3.3 WARNING fs/xfs/xfs_aops.c:1232 xfs_vm_releasepage) References: <20160516010602.GA24980@bfoster.bfoster> <57420A47.2000700@profihost.ag> <20160522213850.GE26977@dastard> <574BEA84.3010206@profihost.ag> <20160530223657.GP26977@dastard> <20160531010724.GA9616@bbox> <20160531025509.GA12670@dastard> <20160531035904.GA17371@bbox> <20160531060712.GC12670@dastard> <574D2B1E.2040002@profihost.ag> <20160531073119.GD12670@dastard> From: Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG Message-ID: <574D455D.8050101@profihost.ag> Date: Tue, 31 May 2016 10:03:41 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20160531073119.GD12670@dastard> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Dave Chinner Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, Minchan Kim , Brian Foster , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "xfs@oss.sgi.com" Am 31.05.2016 um 09:31 schrieb Dave Chinner: > On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 08:11:42AM +0200, Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG wrote: >>> I'm half tempted at this point to mostly ignore this mm/ behavour >>> because we are moving down the path of removing buffer heads from >>> XFS. That will require us to do different things in ->releasepage >>> and so just skipping dirty pages in the XFS code is the best thing >>> to do.... >> >> does this change anything i should test? Or is 4.6 still the way to go? > > Doesn't matter now - the warning will still be there on 4.6. I think > you can simply ignore it as the XFS code appears to be handling the > dirty page that is being passed to it correctly. We'll work out what > needs to be done to get rid of the warning for this case, wether it > be a mm/ change or an XFS change. So is it OK to remove the WARN_ONCE in kernel code? So i don't get alarms from our monitoring systems for the trace. Stefan > > Cheers, > > Dave. > _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs