Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753953Ab0GFGus (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Jul 2010 02:50:48 -0400 Received: from 0122700014.0.fullrate.dk ([95.166.99.235]:55105 "EHLO kernel.dk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753155Ab0GFGur (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Jul 2010 02:50:47 -0400 Message-ID: <4C32D243.1050806@kernel.dk> Date: Tue, 06 Jul 2010 08:50:43 +0200 From: Jens Axboe MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ingo Molnar CC: Linus Torvalds , Bill Davidsen , Christoph Hellwig , Peter Zijlstra , Andrew Morton , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Thomas Gleixner , "Rafael J. Wysocki" Subject: Re: [regression] Crash in wb_clear_pending() 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> <20100706064733.GA12382@elte.hu> In-Reply-To: <20100706064733.GA12382@elte.hu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2026 Lines: 49 On 2010-07-06 08:47, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * 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. http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/7/5/232 It's about as straight forward as it can be :-) It definitely fixes _a_ bug, but whether it's only that bug is not certain. As long as Linus is fine with the larger fix, then I have no issues going in that direction. >> 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 Great, I'll upstream these bits today. Thanks Ingo. -- Jens Axboe -- 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/