Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-109892-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:4601:e00::3 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:4601:e00::3;
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2024 11:27:10 +0100
From: Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>
To: Donald Buczek <buczek@molgen.mpg.de>
Cc: Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>, 
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, it+linux@molgen.mpg.de
Subject: Re: possible 6.6 regression: Deadlock involving super_lock()
Message-ID: <20240321-ruinen-exhumieren-32b9e3fba6fb@brauner>
References: <6e010dbb-f125-4f44-9b1a-9e6ac9bb66ff@molgen.mpg.de>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <6e010dbb-f125-4f44-9b1a-9e6ac9bb66ff@molgen.mpg.de>

On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 10:15:04AM +0100, Donald Buczek wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> we have a set of 6 systems with similar usage patterns which ran on
> 5.15 kernels for over a year.  Only two weeks after we've switched one
> of the systems from a 5.15 kernel to a 6.6 kernel, it went into a
> deadlock. I'm aware that I don't have enough information that this
> could be analyzed, but I though I drop it here anyway, because the
> deadlock seems to involve the locking of a superblock and I've seen
> that some changes in that area went into 6.6. Maybe someone has an
> idea or suggestions for further inspection if this happens the next
> time.

Ok, I'll take a look. It might take a little.