[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <a9cf9bcd72a187127b73042a9369e17bd5a0e93d.camel@hammerspace.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2022 23:50:35 +0000
From: Trond Myklebust <trondmy@...merspace.com>
To: "khazhy@...gle.com" <khazhy@...gle.com>,
"gregkh@...uxfoundation.org" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
CC: "jack@...e.cz" <jack@...e.cz>,
"chuck.lever@...cle.com" <chuck.lever@...cle.com>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"jlayton@...nel.org" <jlayton@...nel.org>,
"bfields@...ldses.org" <bfields@...ldses.org>,
"linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org" <linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org>,
"amir73il@...il.com" <amir73il@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] nfsd: avoid recursive locking through fsnotify
On Mon, 2022-03-21 at 16:36 -0700, Khazhy Kumykov wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 21, 2022 at 3:50 PM Trond Myklebust
> <trondmy@...merspace.com> wrote:
> >
> > As has already been reported, the problem was fixed in Linux 5.5 by
> > the
> > garbage collector rewrite, and so this is no longer an issue.
> >
> 9542e6a643fc ("nfsd: Containerise filecache laundrette"),
> 36ebbdb96b69
> ("nfsd: cleanup nfsd_file_lru_dispose()") apply cleanly to 5.4.y for
> me, which is still LTS. Since this should fix a real deadlock, would
> it be appropriate to include them for the 5.4 stable?
That would be OK with me. I'm not aware of any side-effects that might
be a problem for 5.4.
--
Trond Myklebust
Linux NFS client maintainer, Hammerspace
trond.myklebust@...merspace.com
Powered by blists - more mailing lists