Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <ff34a007-fdd0-8575-8482-919ead39fc88@kernel.dk>
Date:   Mon, 12 Jun 2023 11:29:25 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux aarch64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.11.0
Subject: Re: [6.5-rc5 regression] core dump hangs (was Re: [Bug report]
 fstests generic/051 (on xfs) hang on latest linux v6.5-rc5+)
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc:     "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@kernel.org>,
        Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>,
        Zorro Lang <zlang@redhat.com>, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org,
        "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
        Mike Christie <michael.christie@oracle.com>,
        "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <20230611124836.whfktwaumnefm5z5@zlang-mailbox>
 <ZIZSPyzReZkGBEFy@dread.disaster.area>
 <20230612015145.GA11441@frogsfrogsfrogs>
 <ZIaBQnCKJ6NsqGhd@dread.disaster.area>
 <CAHk-=whJqZLKPR-cpX-V4wJTXVX-_tG5Vjuj2q9knvKGCPdfkg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20230612153629.GA11427@frogsfrogsfrogs>
 <CAHk-=wiN-JcUh4uhDNmA4hp26Mg+c2DTuzgWY2fZ6hytDtOMCg@mail.gmail.com>
 <af31cadf-8c15-8d88-79fb-066dc87f0324@kernel.dk>
 <13d9e4f2-17c5-0709-0cc0-6f92bfe9f30d@kernel.dk>
 <CAHk-=wgdBfqyNHk0iNyYpEuBUdVgq1KMzHMuEqn=ADtfyK_pkQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <212a190c-f81e-2876-cf14-6d1e37d47192@kernel.dk>
 <CAHk-=wh0hrFjcU5C8uHvLBThrT5vQsFHb7Jk6HRP3LAJqdNx1A@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=wh0hrFjcU5C8uHvLBThrT5vQsFHb7Jk6HRP3LAJqdNx1A@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk

On 6/12/23 10:57 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 12, 2023 at 9:45 AM Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk> wrote:
>>
>> You snipped the suspicion in my reply on why that exists, to avoid
>> io_wq_worker_sleeping() triggering.
> 
> I'm not seeing why triggering io_wq_worker_sleeping() should even be a
> problem in the first place.
> 
> I suspect that is entirely historical too, and has to do with how it
> used to do that
> 
>         struct io_worker *worker = kthread_data(tsk);
>         struct io_wqe *wqe = worker->wqe;
> 
> back in the bad old days of kthreads.
> 
> But yeah, I don't know that code.

Looks fine to me to just kill it indeed, whatever we did need this
for is definitely no longer the case. I _think_ we used to have
something in the worker exit that would potentially sleep which
is why we killed it before doing that, now it just looks like dead
code.

-- 
Jens Axboe