From: Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@redhat.com>
To: Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>
Cc: "Richard W.M. Jones" <rjones@redhat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Jens Axboe <jaxboe@fusionio.com>,
Torsten Hilbrich <torsten.hilbrich@secunet.com>,
Josh Boyer <jwboyer@redhat.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] block: replace __getblk_slow misfix by grow_dev_page fix
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 16:40:11 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <x49obm1fil0.fsf@segfault.boston.devel.redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LSU.2.00.1208222143440.1917@eggly.anvils> (Hugh Dickins's message of "Wed, 22 Aug 2012 21:56:12 -0700 (PDT)")
Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com> writes:
> [PATCH] block: replace __getblk_slow misfix by grow_dev_page fix
>
> Commit 91f68c89d8f3 ("block: fix infinite loop in __getblk_slow")
> is not good: a successful call to grow_buffers() cannot guarantee
> that the page won't be reclaimed before the immediate next call to
> __find_get_block(), which is why there was always a loop there.
[snip]
> Revert 91f68c89d8f3, restoring __getblk_slow() to how it was (plus
> a checkpatch nitfix). Simplify the interface between grow_buffers()
> and grow_dev_page(), and avoid the infinite loop beyond end of device
> by instead checking init_page_buffers()'s end_block there (I presume
> that's more efficient than a repeated call to blkdev_max_block()),
> returning -ENXIO to __getblk_slow() in that case.
>
> And remove akpm's ten-year-old "__getblk() cannot fail ... weird"
> comment, but that is worrying: are all users of __getblk() really
> now prepared for a NULL bh beyond end of device, or will some oops??
Hi, Hugh,
Thanks for digging into this. I had wondered whether that loop was
required for other purposes, and you've verified that it was. I mostly
like your fix. Returning end_block from init_page_buffers is a little
strange, but I understand not wanting to redo the call to
blkdev_max_block.
I went ahead to re-tested with the reproducer that I had, and your patch
works fine. Thanks again for tracking this down, and sorry I wasn't
more diligent to begin with.
Reviewed-and-Tested-by: Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@redhat.com>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-08-23 20:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-08-22 1:33 Hugh Dickins
2012-08-22 9:12 ` Richard W.M. Jones
2012-08-22 11:52 ` Richard W.M. Jones
2012-08-23 4:56 ` Hugh Dickins
2012-08-23 10:20 ` Jens Axboe
2012-08-23 20:40 ` Jeff Moyer [this message]
2012-08-23 22:46 ` Hugh Dickins
2012-08-24 13:13 ` Jeff Moyer
2012-08-28 11:14 ` Richard W.M. Jones
2012-08-28 14:35 ` Hugh Dickins
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=x49obm1fil0.fsf@segfault.boston.devel.redhat.com \
--to=jmoyer@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=hughd@google.com \
--cc=jaxboe@fusionio.com \
--cc=jwboyer@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rjones@redhat.com \
--cc=torsten.hilbrich@secunet.com \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
Powered by JetHome