Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752626AbbLLSdo (ORCPT ); Sat, 12 Dec 2015 13:33:44 -0500 Received: from mail-io0-f180.google.com ([209.85.223.180]:34784 "EHLO mail-io0-f180.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752515AbbLLSdm (ORCPT ); Sat, 12 Dec 2015 13:33:42 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20151212162342.GF11257@ret.masoncoding.com> References: <20151212162342.GF11257@ret.masoncoding.com> Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2015 10:33:42 -0800 X-Google-Sender-Auth: UvmKGcf7UdjdzMvvLQeR2k4rp9M Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] lock_page() doesn't lock if __wait_on_bit_lock returns -EINTR From: Linus Torvalds To: Chris Mason , Linus Torvalds , Peter Zijlstra , Dave Jones , LKML , Jon Christopherson Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 826 Lines: 19 On Sat, Dec 12, 2015 at 8:23 AM, Chris Mason wrote: > We have two reports of frequent crashes in btrfs where asserts in > clear_page_dirty_for_io() were triggering on missing page locks. > > The crashes were much easier to trigger when processes were catching > ctrl-c's, and after much debugging it really looked like lock_page was a > noop. Hmm. PeterZ has another patch for wait_ob_bit signal handling pending, but I *think* that one only affects the "killable()" case. Peter, did that patch also handle just plain "lock_page()" case? Linus -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/