Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753653Ab0GFGr4 (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Jul 2010 02:47:56 -0400 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:50835 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751194Ab0GFGrz (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Jul 2010 02:47:55 -0400 Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2010 08:47:33 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Bill Davidsen , Jens Axboe , Christoph Hellwig , Peter Zijlstra , Andrew Morton , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Thomas Gleixner , "Rafael J. Wysocki" Subject: Re: [regression] Crash in wb_clear_pending() Message-ID: <20100706064733.GA12382@elte.hu> References: <20100705085550.GA26775@elte.hu> <20100705164022.GA26995@infradead.org> <20100705171125.GB26202@elte.hu> <20100705171420.GA29697@elte.hu> <20100705182003.GA12332@infradead.org> <4C323177.3070606@kernel.dk> <4C324C78.5090805@tmr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-08-17) X-ELTE-SpamScore: -2.0 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-2.0 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.5 -2.0 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1642 Lines: 39 * Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 2:19 PM, Bill Davidsen wrote: > > > > Absent a small fix, and given that the big fix has a lot more testing than > > any new patch might, in this case the quickie might be undesirable. > > Particularly since posters here seem sure that code will be replaced in the > > next version anyway, and lightly tested patch to obsolete code is actually > > less conservative. > > I have to agree. Especially as the "big patch" just removes the fragile code > that caused the problem in the first place. So in this case I do suspect > that the bigger patch ends up being the safer one. Yeah, i agree - especially since the smaller patch is still pretty large (not a oneliner), plus it does not appear that the precise failure mode is fully understood either. > But I obviously don't actually see the problem, so it would be good to get > confirmation that Christoph's patch actually fixes things first. Ingo, does > the one in this thread apply for you? Yes, the three larger patches survived overnight testing with 300+ iterations and i did some other tests as well, which passed too. These are the patches i applied: a73dd720 writeback: remove writeback_inodes_wbc 9f98c0fa writeback: split writeback_inodes_wb 79338d2a writeback: simplify the write back thread queue Thanks, Ingo -- 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/