[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180613144606.nvbcyg2rdjpxhf7s@quack2.suse.cz>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2018 16:46:06 +0200
From: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
To: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
syzbot <syzbot+4a7438e774b21ddd8eca@...kaller.appspotmail.com>,
syzkaller-bugs <syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] bdi: Fix another oops in wb_workfn()
On Wed 13-06-18 19:43:47, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> Can't we utilize RCU grace period (like shown below) ?
Honestly, the variant 1 looks too ugly to me. However variant 2 looks
mostly OK. We can also avoid the schedule_timeout_uninterruptible(HZ / 10)
from your patch by careful handling of the bit waitqueues. Also I'd avoid
the addition argument to wb_writeback() and split the function instead. The
patch resulting from your and mine ideas is attached. Thoughts?
Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>
SUSE Labs, CR
View attachment "0001-bdi-Fix-another-oops-in-wb_workfn.patch" of type "text/x-patch" (5899 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists