From: "Alex Xu (Hello71)" <alex_y_xu@yahoo.ca>
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
Cc: stable <stable@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: FAILED: patch "[PATCH] pipe: increase minimum default pipe size to 2 pages" failed to apply to 4.4-stable tree
Date: Mon, 09 Aug 2021 12:51:48 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1628527244.3ckns4zvnz.none@localhost> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YRFXe06Eih48qlD7@kroah.com>
Excerpts from Greg Kroah-Hartman's message of August 9, 2021 12:27 pm:
> On Mon, Aug 09, 2021 at 09:23:00AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 9, 2021 at 2:52 AM <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>> >
>> > The patch below does not apply to the 4.4-stable tree.
>>
>> It shouldn't.
>>
>> The pipe buffer accounting and soft limits that introduced the whole
>> "limp along with limited pipe buffers" behavior that this fixes was
>> introduced by
>>
>> > Fixes: 759c01142a ("pipe: limit the per-user amount of pages allocated in pipes")
>>
>> ..which made it into 4.5.
>>
>> So 4.4 is unaffected and doesn't want this patch.
>
> But that commit showed up in 4.4.13 as fa6d0ba12a8e ("pipe: limit the
> per-user amount of pages allocated in pipes") which is why I asked about
> this. The code didn't look similar at all, so I couldn't easily figure
> out the backport myself :(
>
> Willy, any ideas?
>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h
>
alloc_pipe_info was heavily modified in 09b4d19900 ("pipe: simplify
logic in alloc_pipe_info()") and a005ca0e68 ("pipe: fix limit checking
in alloc_pipe_info()"), which I think landed in 4.9 and weren't
backported. The backported patch should look similar to this:
@@ -621,7 +621,7 @@
if (!too_many_pipe_buffers_hard(user)) {
if (too_many_pipe_buffers_soft(user))
- pipe_bufs = 1;
+ pipe_bufs = 2;
pipe->bufs = kzalloc(sizeof(struct pipe_buffer) * pipe_bufs, GFP_KERNEL);
}
I can send a rebased patch, but I think we can also leave it the way it
is. It's a bit of an edge case; if nobody's hit it so far on 4.4, maybe
it can just stay this way until February. There's SLTS, but I don't
think they're interested in this kind of patch. Thoughts?
Cheers,
Alex.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-08-09 16:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-08-09 9:52 FAILED: patch "[PATCH] pipe: increase minimum default pipe size to 2 pages" failed to apply to 4.4-stable tree gregkh
2021-08-09 16:23 ` Linus Torvalds
2021-08-09 16:27 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2021-08-09 16:36 ` Linus Torvalds
2021-08-09 16:46 ` Linus Torvalds
2021-08-09 17:40 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2021-08-09 19:04 ` Willy Tarreau
2021-08-10 6:54 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2021-08-10 8:39 ` Willy Tarreau
2021-08-09 16:51 ` Alex Xu (Hello71) [this message]
2021-08-09 16:57 ` Willy Tarreau
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1628527244.3ckns4zvnz.none@localhost \
--to=alex_y_xu@yahoo.ca \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=w@1wt.eu \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox