[lkml]   [2010]   [Sep]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    Patch in this message
    SubjectRe: [00/80] stable review
    On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 04:49:57PM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
    > On Friday, September 24, 2010, Greg KH wrote:
    > >This is the start of the stable review cycle for the release.
    > >There are 80 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response
    > >to this one. If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please
    > >let us know. If anyone is a maintainer of the proper subsystem, and
    > >wants to add a Signed-off-by: line to the patch, please respond with it.
    > >
    > >Responses should be made by Sunday September 26, 17:00:00 UTC
    > >Anything received after that time might be too late.
    > >
    > >The whole patch series can be found in one patch at:
    > >
    > Hi Greg; I just pulled this about an hour ago, built it from a make
    > oldconfig based on a flawlessly running

    Please cc: me on messages, I don't read lkml as well as I should these
    days due to travel.

    > 3 things I call regressions.
    > 1. On rebooting to it, and launching kmail, cpu went to 100% of whatever
    > core it skipped to on a 4 core amd phenom box with 4G of ram. Normally,
    > kmail on a restart will check and rebuild its indices, taking maybe 4 or 5
    > minutes to do this up till now, during that time keyboard/mouse
    > interactivity lags a split second. This time it was 44 minutes before I
    > got my machine back. At times the keyboard went dead for minutes at a
    > time. I even went to the kitchen and got fresh batteries for it, only to
    > have everything I had typed blind 2 minutes before, show up on screen while
    > there was no batteries in it.

    Odd, can you try reverting the patch below to see if it makes things
    better? I need to drop it as Jens said it might cause problems. Let me
    know if that solves the problem or not please.

    > 2. That I think is separate from the login screen, there I had no keyboard
    > or mouse for a minute, but something finally registered and I was able to
    > log in then.
    > 3. My usb tree is not fully populated, this has been a frequent problem for
    > the last year or so, udev often does not wait for responses long enough to
    > trace a several hubs tall tree to the last branch so I have to crawl under
    > and unplug the missing stuff later, which is then properly recognized when I
    > plug it back into the same socket on the same hub. One of my often missing
    > printers is 4 hubs away in the basement.

    These both sound like the same issue, you might want to work to resolve

    Oh, and 4 hubs distance, that's pushing the limits of USB, one flaky
    cable and you are not going to have a working printer...


    greg k-h
    From 692ebd17c2905313fff3c504c249c6a0faad16ec Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
    From: Jan Kara <>
    Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2010 11:51:01 +0200
    Subject: bdi: Fix warnings in __mark_inode_dirty for /dev/zero and friends

    From: Jan Kara <>

    commit 692ebd17c2905313fff3c504c249c6a0faad16ec upstream.

    Inodes of devices such as /dev/zero can get dirty for example via
    utime(2) syscall or due to atime update. Backing device of such inodes
    (zero_bdi, etc.) is however unable to handle dirty inodes and thus
    __mark_inode_dirty complains. In fact, inode should be rather dirtied
    against backing device of the filesystem holding it. This is generally a
    good rule except for filesystems such as 'bdev' or 'mtd_inodefs'. Inodes
    in these pseudofilesystems are referenced from ordinary filesystem
    inodes and carry mapping with real data of the device. Thus for these
    inodes we have to use inode->i_mapping->backing_dev_info as we did so
    far. We distinguish these filesystems by checking whether sb->s_bdi
    points to a non-trivial backing device or not.

    Example: Assume we have an ext3 filesystem on /dev/sda1 mounted on /.
    There's a device inode A described by a path "/dev/sdb" on this
    filesystem. This inode will be dirtied against backing device "8:0"
    after this patch. bdev filesystem contains block device inode B coupled
    with our inode A. When someone modifies a page of /dev/sdb, it's B that
    gets dirtied and the dirtying happens against the backing device "8:16".
    Thus both inodes get filed to a correct bdi list.

    Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <>
    Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe <>
    Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <>

    fs/fs-writeback.c | 23 +++++++++++++++++++++--
    1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

    --- a/fs/fs-writeback.c
    +++ b/fs/fs-writeback.c
    @@ -28,8 +28,6 @@
    #include <linux/buffer_head.h>
    #include "internal.h"

    -#define inode_to_bdi(inode) ((inode)->i_mapping->backing_dev_info)
    * We don't actually have pdflush, but this one is exported though /proc...
    @@ -62,6 +60,27 @@ int writeback_in_progress(struct backing
    return !list_empty(&bdi->work_list);

    +static inline struct backing_dev_info *inode_to_bdi(struct inode *inode)
    + struct super_block *sb = inode->i_sb;
    + struct backing_dev_info *bdi = inode->i_mapping->backing_dev_info;
    + /*
    + * For inodes on standard filesystems, we use superblock's bdi. For
    + * inodes on virtual filesystems, we want to use inode mapping's bdi
    + * because they can possibly point to something useful (think about
    + * block_dev filesystem).
    + */
    + if (sb->s_bdi && sb->s_bdi != &noop_backing_dev_info) {
    + /* Some device inodes could play dirty tricks. Catch them... */
    + WARN(bdi != sb->s_bdi && bdi_cap_writeback_dirty(bdi),
    + "Dirtiable inode bdi %s != sb bdi %s\n",
    + bdi->name, sb->s_bdi->name);
    + return sb->s_bdi;
    + }
    + return bdi;
    static void bdi_queue_work(struct backing_dev_info *bdi,
    struct wb_writeback_work *work)
     \ /
      Last update: 2010-09-27 20:09    [W:2.038 / U:17.684 seconds]
    ©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site