From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1030277Ab2GLJ4l (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Jul 2012 05:56:41 -0400 Received: from e28smtp01.in.ibm.com ([122.248.162.1]:54167 "EHLO e28smtp01.in.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1759052Ab2GLJ4j (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Jul 2012 05:56:39 -0400 Message-ID: <1342086988.4091.44.camel@ThinkPad-T420> Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND] Fix a dead loop in async_synchronize_full() From: Li Zhong To: Dan Williams Cc: Andrew Morton , LKML , arjan@linux.intel.com, "Paul E. McKenney" , Christian Kujau , Cong Wang Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2012 17:56:28 +0800 In-Reply-To: References: <1341817465.4579.5.camel@ThinkPad-T420> <20120711154232.165cbca9.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.2.3-0ubuntu6 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 x-cbid: 12071209-4790-0000-0000-000003A7889F Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 2012-07-11 at 15:50 -0700, Dan Williams wrote: > On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 3:42 PM, Andrew Morton > wrote: > > The patch is fairly wordwrapped - please fix up your email client. > > > > More seriously, it does not apply to linux-next due to some fairly > > significant changes which have been sitting in Dan's tree since May. > > What's going on? > > > > Those changes missed the 3.5 merge window, but now that they have > Arjan's ack they should head upstream via James for 3.6. Right now > they are on his pending [1] branch. > > As far as the comment: > > > It seems async_synchronize_full() wants to synchronize all entries in > > all running lists(domains), so maybe we could just check the entry_count > > to know whether all works are finished. > > ...at first glance this is what the new async patches achieve. > async_synchronize_full should now sync work across all domains, but if > you can reproduce this bug it would be nice to confirm that the > pending changes fix it. > I have tested your pending patches, they fix the problem here. But with ASYNC_DOMAIN_EXCLUSIVE added for the domains defined on the stack, I think we lack a function that could wait for all the works in all domains (however, maybe actually we don't need such an interface). Also, I think it's not good to exclude them from async_synchronize_full() just because they are defined on the stack. > -- > Dan > > [1]: http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/jejb/scsi.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/pending >