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 1EFC07CA2 for ; Thu, 2 Jun 2016 07:44:41 -0500 (CDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.176.25]) by relay2.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96C74304059 for ; Thu, 2 Jun 2016 05:44:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail02.iobjects.de (mail02.iobjects.de [188.40.134.68]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id uvVU4lTU4ZRDEHyH (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 02 Jun 2016 05:44:32 -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> <575022D2.7030502@profihost.ag> From: =?UTF-8?Q?Holger_Hoffst=c3=a4tte?= Message-ID: <57502A2E.60702@applied-asynchrony.com> Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2016 14:44:30 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <575022D2.7030502@profihost.ag> 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: Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG , Dave Chinner Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, Brian Foster , "xfs@oss.sgi.com" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Minchan Kim On 06/02/16 14:13, Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG wrote: > > 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. > > Any idea what i could do with 4.4.X? Can i safely remove the WARN_ONCE > statement? By definition it won't break anything since it's just a heads-up message, so yes, it should be "safe". However if my understanding of the situation is correct, mainline commit f0281a00fe "mm: workingset: only do workingset activations on reads" (+ friends) in 4.7 should effectively prevent this from happenning. Can someone confirm or deny this? -h PS: Stefan: I backported that commit (and friends) to my 4.4.x patch queue, so if you want to try that for today's 4.4.12 the warning should be gone. No guarantees though :) _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs