[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [RFC, PATCH 0/102]: xfs: 3.0.x stable kernel update

To: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [RFC, PATCH 0/102]: xfs: 3.0.x stable kernel update
From: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2012 07:54:09 +1000
In-reply-to: <1345698180-13612-1-git-send-email-david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <1345698180-13612-1-git-send-email-david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)

Can please tell me if you did or didn't get the entire series. I
didn't receive the entire series back in my inbox - about 20 are
missing from my inbox.  A quick check of the archives shows that all
102 patches reached the server and entered the archive, so I'm
curious to know how many people had delivery failures....



On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 03:01:18PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> This series is a backport of all the major bug fixes in the current
> TOT kernel to the current 3.0.x stable tree.
> I won't make any secret of this - the fixes and supporting patches
> have been selected as a result of the issues reported in the current
> RHEL XFS codebase which currently is 2 commits short of the 3.0 code
> base.  With that said, it doesn't take a brain surgeon to work out
> the motivations behind this work and eventual destination of the
> patch set. ;)
> There's no guarantee I have caught every single bug fix that has
> been made since 3.0, but I've tried to grab all the bug fix commits
> as indicated by the commit headers (hence the importance of good one
> line bug summaries).
> Over the past couple of weeks of testing and refining, I've had only
> three significant problems arise from QA and load testing:
>       1) An unreproducable log space hang
>       2) An unmount panic due to buffers not being cleaned up
>       before tearing down the perag tree
>       3) A forced shutdown panic in block_invalidatepage()
>       via xfs_aops_discard_page()
> It's entirely possible that #1 was due to the CIL space hang we
> still haven't got to the bottom of, so i'm not not greatly concerned
> by that. #2 implies I haven't quite backported the shutdown ordering
> fixes correctly (or I missed one), so I have a bit more work to do
> there. And for #3 - I've never seen that before and I haven't been
> able to reproduce it, so I really don't know what potential cause or
> impact it has.
> I've been beating on the series with xfstests, dbench, fsmark,
> postmark, compilebench and a few other load scripts that I've got,
> and it seems fairly resilient.  Hence, it's time to give the series
> wider testing and review to flush out any remaining issues.
> For all the folks that run 3.0.x stable kernels, I'd appreciate it if
> you could give this a whirl on your test systems to see if there are
> any obvious, glaring problems that show up under your particular
> workloads. This woul dbe of great benefit to me before I submit the
> series to the stable kernel gurus - I'd prefer it there's more
> substantial testing than "i've done what I can" when sending them
> the series.
> For all the XFS developers that have copious amounts of free time
> available, I'd appreciate an eye run over the patch list to see if
> there's any potential bug fixes that I missed or have made glaring
> errors in backporting. Some of the fixes are dependent on cleanups I
> haven't included, so some of the patches are a bit different to what
> is in mainline (e.g. anything that touches setattr). Most important
> to look at is probably the inode i_size changes and the logging of
> all metadata changes.
> Enjoy!
> Cheers,
> Dave.
> _______________________________________________
> xfs mailing list
> xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
> http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
> -- 
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
> believed to be clean.

Dave Chinner

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>