Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5.5 072/176] bcache: ignore pending signals when creating
 gc and allocator thread
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc:     stable@vger.kernel.org, Coly Li <colyli@suse.de>,
        Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
References: <20200303174304.593872177@linuxfoundation.org>
 <20200303174312.994115258@linuxfoundation.org>
From:   Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
Message-ID: <24e19cd9-8eea-a41a-27f7-84ffcd872977@kernel.dk>
Date:   Tue, 3 Mar 2020 10:58:29 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.4.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20200303174312.994115258@linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 3/3/20 10:42 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> From: Coly Li <colyli@suse.de>
> 
> [ Upstream commit 0b96da639a4874311e9b5156405f69ef9fc3bef8 ]
> 
> When run a cache set, all the bcache btree node of this cache set will
> be checked by bch_btree_check(). If the bcache btree is very large,
> iterating all the btree nodes will occupy too much system memory and
> the bcache registering process might be selected and killed by system
> OOM killer. kthread_run() will fail if current process has pending
> signal, therefore the kthread creating in run_cache_set() for gc and
> allocator kernel threads are very probably failed for a very large
> bcache btree.
> 
> Indeed such OOM is safe and the registering process will exit after
> the registration done. Therefore this patch flushes pending signals
> during the cache set start up, specificly in bch_cache_allocator_start()
> and bch_gc_thread_start(), to make sure run_cache_set() won't fail for
> large cahced data set.

Ditto this one, of course.

Did someone send this in for stable? It's not marked stable in the
original commit.

-- 
Jens Axboe