[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ff34a007-fdd0-8575-8482-919ead39fc88@kernel.dk>
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2023 11:29:25 -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 10:57 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 12, 2023 at 9:45 AM Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk> wrote:
>>
>> You snipped the suspicion in my reply on why that exists, to avoid
>> io_wq_worker_sleeping() triggering.
>
> I'm not seeing why triggering io_wq_worker_sleeping() should even be a
> problem in the first place.
>
> I suspect that is entirely historical too, and has to do with how it
> used to do that
>
> struct io_worker *worker = kthread_data(tsk);
> struct io_wqe *wqe = worker->wqe;
>
> back in the bad old days of kthreads.
>
> But yeah, I don't know that code.
Looks fine to me to just kill it indeed, whatever we did need this
for is definitely no longer the case. I _think_ we used to have
something in the worker exit that would potentially sleep which
is why we killed it before doing that, now it just looks like dead
code.
--
Jens Axboe
Powered by blists - more mailing lists