From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,T_DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54B7FC04AA8 for ; Thu, 2 May 2019 13:20:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24EA120B7C for ; Thu, 2 May 2019 13:20:35 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1556803235; bh=lnBk0334Jw7S1ntJD6loqfr3/5TE3zzisr0gGgvbCf0=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:List-ID:From; b=DZ6/y9cXKoGV5fKslKfQB+W3+nv7t+1koAFxZqJDwYdtuQ2EUS63S0ICoJR0422ux KiDhtXgbA6XFPZB2hQgVXoJSwXf/jofaNuuWasr25df5IPzzIrctEUhU6DxMAZRSIV MTp8LNZNsyfjNrnQJUt04WIvSr45715GgPeUhnMY= Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726268AbfEBNUe (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 May 2019 09:20:34 -0400 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:44096 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726203AbfEBNUe (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 May 2019 09:20:34 -0400 Received: from localhost (adsl-173-228-226-134.prtc.net [173.228.226.134]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9F5CD2063F; Thu, 2 May 2019 13:20:32 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1556803233; bh=lnBk0334Jw7S1ntJD6loqfr3/5TE3zzisr0gGgvbCf0=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=K1DW+SZKdsZBuwirEld6Cstp5DbaXwO1uukz+H8oVkn+s9KAxk7RqCqzZP5B9+6mp wgSqx7is2SyZHeRF40/7vsqOM/H304D3kTZlhogDIJSgFILpEcmuavg4YIg22Lo8WR Ijh7C75sXrjlIJNL1qgDWrQka4ilN9e6jyWrSbzg= Date: Thu, 2 May 2019 09:20:27 -0400 From: Sasha Levin To: Greg Kroah-Hartman Cc: Dave Chinner , "Darrick J. Wong" , Andre Noll , linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: xfs: Assertion failed in xfs_ag_resv_init() Message-ID: <20190502132027.GF11584@sasha-vm> References: <20190430190525.GB2780@tuebingen.mpg.de> <20190430191825.GF5217@magnolia> <20190430210724.GD2780@tuebingen.mpg.de> <20190501153643.GL5207@magnolia> <20190501165933.GF2780@tuebingen.mpg.de> <20190501171529.GB28949@kroah.com> <20190501175129.GH2780@tuebingen.mpg.de> <20190501192822.GM5207@magnolia> <20190501221107.GI29573@dread.disaster.area> <20190502114440.GB21563@kroah.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190502114440.GB21563@kroah.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Sender: stable-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: stable@vger.kernel.org On Thu, May 02, 2019 at 01:44:40PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: >On Thu, May 02, 2019 at 08:11:07AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: >> On Wed, May 01, 2019 at 12:28:22PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: >> > On Wed, May 01, 2019 at 07:51:29PM +0200, Andre Noll wrote: >> > > On Wed, May 01, 19:15, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote >> > > > On Wed, May 01, 2019 at 06:59:33PM +0200, Andre Noll wrote: >> > > > > On Wed, May 01, 08:36, Darrick J. Wong wrote >> > > > > > > > You could send this patch to the stable list, but my guess is that >> > > > > > > > they'd prefer a straight backport of all three commits... >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Hm, cherry-picking the first commit onto 4.9,171 already gives >> > > > > > > four conflicting files. The conflicts are trivial to resolve (git >> > > > > > > cherry-pick -xX theirs 21ec54168b36 does it), but that doesn't >> > > > > > > compile because xfs_btree_query_all() is missing. So e9a2599a249ed >> > > > > > > (xfs: create a function to query all records in a btree) is needed as >> > > > > > > well. But then, applying 86210fbebae (xfs: move various type verifiers >> > > > > > > to common file) on top of that gives non-trivial conflicts. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Ah, I suspected that might happen. Backports are hard. :( >> > > > > > >> > > > > > I suppose one saving grace of the patch you sent is that it'll likely >> > > > > > break the build if anyone ever /does/ attempt a backport of those first >> > > > > > two commits. Perhaps that is the most practical way forward. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > So, for automatic backporting we would need to cherry-pick even more, >> > > > > > > and each backported commit should be tested of course. Given this, do >> > > > > > > you still think Greg prefers a rather large set of straight backports >> > > > > > > over the simple commit that just pulls in the missing function? >> > > > > > >> > > > > > I think you'd have to ask him that, if you decide not to send >> > > > > > yesterday's patch. >> > > > > >> > > > > Let's try. I've added a sentence to the commit message which explains >> > > > > why a straight backport is not practical, and how to proceed if anyone >> > > > > wants to backport the earlier commits. >> > > > > >> > > > > Greg: Under the given circumstances, would you be willing to accept >> > > > > the patch below for 4.9? >> > > > >> > > > If the xfs maintainers say this is ok, it is fine with me. >> > > >> > > Darrick said, he's in favor of the patch, so I guess I can add his >> > > Acked-by. Would you also like to see the ack from Dave (the author >> > > of the original commit)? >> > >> > FWIW it seems fine to me, though Dave [cc'd] might have stronger opinions... >> >> Only thing I care about is whether it is QA'd properly. Greg, Sasha, >> is the 4.9 stable kernel having fstests run on it as part of the >> release gating? > >I do not know about fstests, I know Linaro was looking into doing it as >part of the test suites that they verify before I do a release. But I >doubt it's run on an XFS filesystem. > >Sasha was doing some work in this area though, Sasha? My biggest blocker at this point that it is extremely difficult to get a baseline for a kernel version. Even after adding all the "known" failures to the expunge list, I ket hitting issues that reproduced once every 100 runs, and once those are expunged I started hitting even rarer stuff. While there's no actual real difficulty in building these expunge lists, it ended up being somewhat of a loop where I couldn't establish a solid baseline since random things kept breaking. -- Thanks, Sasha