[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <212a190c-f81e-2876-cf14-6d1e37d47192@kernel.dk>
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2023 10:45:05 -0600
From: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>,
Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
Zorro Lang <zlang@...hat.com>, linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Mike Christie <michael.christie@...cle.com>,
"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [6.5-rc5 regression] core dump hangs (was Re: [Bug report]
fstests generic/051 (on xfs) hang on latest linux v6.5-rc5+)
On 6/12/23 10:42?AM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 12, 2023 at 9:38?AM Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk> wrote:
>>
>> Quick peek would suggest that it's because io-wq clears PF_IO_WORKER on
>> exit, and now we fail the check in coredump_task_exit() that was added.
>
> Oh, that makes sense.
>
> Well, it makes sense for the bug, but that whole
>
> preempt_disable();
> current->flags &= ~PF_IO_WORKER;
> preempt_enable();
>
> thin in io_worker_exit() does *not* make sense to me.
>
> Does removing those three lines make things "JustWork(tm)"?
You snipped the suspicion in my reply on why that exists, to avoid
io_wq_worker_sleeping() triggering. But arguably this should be covered
by the RUNNING flag. I'll poke at it shortly, and yeah then we should
just remove the PF_IO_WORKER clearing.
Or maybe I'm just smoking crack and it's no longer needed at all. Will
test and send a patch.
--
Jens Axboe
Powered by blists - more mailing lists