From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-lf0-f70.google.com (mail-lf0-f70.google.com [209.85.215.70]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D0356B0263 for ; Tue, 31 May 2016 04:03:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-lf0-f70.google.com with SMTP id h68so60249750lfh.2 for ; Tue, 31 May 2016 01:03:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ph.de-nserver.de (mail-ph.de-nserver.de. [85.158.179.214]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id gx6si49062954wjb.76.2016.05.31.01.03.42 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 31 May 2016 01:03:42 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: shrink_active_list/try_to_release_page bug? (was Re: xfs trace in 4.4.2 / also in 4.3.3 WARNING fs/xfs/xfs_aops.c:1232 xfs_vm_releasepage) References: <20160516010602.GA24980@bfoster.bfoster> <57420A47.2000700@profihost.ag> <20160522213850.GE26977@dastard> <574BEA84.3010206@profihost.ag> <20160530223657.GP26977@dastard> <20160531010724.GA9616@bbox> <20160531025509.GA12670@dastard> <20160531035904.GA17371@bbox> <20160531060712.GC12670@dastard> <574D2B1E.2040002@profihost.ag> <20160531073119.GD12670@dastard> From: Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG Message-ID: <574D455D.8050101@profihost.ag> Date: Tue, 31 May 2016 10:03:41 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20160531073119.GD12670@dastard> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Dave Chinner Cc: Minchan Kim , Brian Foster , "xfs@oss.sgi.com" , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Am 31.05.2016 um 09:31 schrieb Dave Chinner: > On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 08:11:42AM +0200, Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG wrote: >>> I'm half tempted at this point to mostly ignore this mm/ behavour >>> because we are moving down the path of removing buffer heads from >>> XFS. That will require us to do different things in ->releasepage >>> and so just skipping dirty pages in the XFS code is the best thing >>> to do.... >> >> does this change anything i should test? Or is 4.6 still the way to go? > > Doesn't matter now - the warning will still be there on 4.6. I think > you can simply ignore it as the XFS code appears to be handling the > dirty page that is being passed to it correctly. We'll work out what > needs to be done to get rid of the warning for this case, wether it > be a mm/ change or an XFS change. So is it OK to remove the WARN_ONCE in kernel code? So i don't get alarms from our monitoring systems for the trace. Stefan > > Cheers, > > Dave. > -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org