[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1513902570.3132.22.camel@HansenPartnership.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2017 16:29:30 -0800
From: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>
To: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Bruno Wolff III <bruno@...ff.to>,
weiping zhang <zwp10758@...il.com>
Cc: Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
linux-mm@...ck.org,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
regressions@...mhuis.info,
weiping zhang <zhangweiping@...ichuxing.com>,
linux-block@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Regression with a0747a859ef6 ("bdi: add error handle for
bdi_debug_register")
On Thu, 2017-12-21 at 10:02 -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 12/21/17 9:42 AM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 23:48:19 +0800,
> > weiping zhang <zwp10758@...il.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > output you want. I never saw it for any kernels I compiled
> > > > myself. Only when I test kernels built by Fedora do I see it.
> > > > see it every boot ?
> >
> > I don't look every boot. The warning gets scrolled of the screen.
> > Once I see the CPU hang warnings I know the boot is failing. I
> > don't always look at journalctl later to see what's there.
>
> I'm going to revert a0747a859ef6 for now, since we're now 8 days into
> this and no progress has been made on fixing it.
I think this is correct. If you build the kernel with
CONFIG_DEBUG_FS=N, you're definitely going to get the same hang
(because the debugfs_ functions fail with -ENODEV and the bdi will
never get registered). This alone leads me to suspect the commit is
bogus because it's a randconfig/test accident waiting to happen.
We should still root cause the debugfs failure in this case, but I
really think debugfs files should be treated as optional, so a failure
in setting them up should translate to some sort of warning not a
failure to set up the bdi.
James
Powered by blists - more mailing lists