On 05/07/10 20.20, Christoph Hellwig 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.On Mon, Jul 05, 2010 at 07:14:20PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:Nor does it apply to v2.6.35-rc4:It's indeed missing the two previous patches to the writeback code that
I thought Jens sent to Linus aswell [1]. The race was initially found using
a distro kernel with the patches backported, and in the meantime we've
done a lot of testing with this patch (and the two previous that also
were backported). I'd prefer to get this full stack that's been in
-next for a while and got large machine testing, but if Jens prefers it
I can aim for a smaller variant. Jens, what version do you prefer?
The oops itself looks like a recurrence of the missing RCU grace or
too early stack wakeup, which should be a 1-2 liner once it's found.
So I think such a patch would be greatly preferable to doing this
much churn this late in the cycle.
Christoph, do you have time to look into that? We can always punt to
the larger version in a few days if unsuccessful, which gets rid of
the problem by simply deleting the troublesome and complex
clear/wakeup logic.