From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93AEEC3524E for ; Mon, 3 Feb 2020 08:50:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E9EE2082E for ; Mon, 3 Feb 2020 08:50:48 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=linaro.org header.i=@linaro.org header.b="uCUdKkI9" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727806AbgBCIur (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Feb 2020 03:50:47 -0500 Received: from mail-wm1-f65.google.com ([209.85.128.65]:40425 "EHLO mail-wm1-f65.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727512AbgBCIur (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Feb 2020 03:50:47 -0500 Received: by mail-wm1-f65.google.com with SMTP id t14so15885589wmi.5 for ; Mon, 03 Feb 2020 00:50:45 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linaro.org; s=google; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=E9yD/JzO7wOM/RD5gPdB58qIR7x/yAibGDSYxkuUsus=; b=uCUdKkI9CniAQzpRtV8zjdm2ZMon8dvQrbqM9q2lkZcC486D20/zhL01Gi/SNDgp3N h0LSRik+HIUR0hUw57H/U35rGcpiq5TGwgWK9SYfC3eST3P64x7MmMh/QxwPDyKVT+5d +7qofLwVOH5s/9pgiWF6ZspEhnW4wkeMpa8f3UQTi3xBHaeQsgvc0VtPxdfwTJ4qAo+Y WPfJCYUnIuTmpGQxxD7/xqq3uAmzG2pc/d+OE2DpglXHSdgFjv4tJ8CZCcoEWImdrWJq Gk4Vyt3LEATq2ZVzhV0eI3yXm6xLh3l06+Jmi6Kk32kJ9VkyyIdzPyuLPpcKkKK5GqVi rppQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=E9yD/JzO7wOM/RD5gPdB58qIR7x/yAibGDSYxkuUsus=; b=a2v6O9id+N422la0IygJOLHzuIOMfObvllMzUwMVQFlcSrQZ4JWUL6eSPhijjIfk2D BKh77y28QGnkJrAeLsJffHnpIJNyXlv0KQxZ03VMx5eMu6ssMF9nhOnSa7YDTTr8A9Px YmU0NSU2640+zIKjXZ6HzV8DQA0NnHNlaR+ERdJHMw10cH55O6cQyIiOHvphMZWXkDXP BPYh9zz2gmUJWCh80qZ/KIz8fYLo4bDvNw4f7zMD2VFaTyKX78yFYl/lJCa8mWwN0sx1 gsMLpA9v2m0PgMb4k6gfIwAb1loyPpZ1YRQcqvi32sErVXiuIZCXGwNje3zWqgmwhqSg 7gwg== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAU1wX8trE+HqHswupiIr8EDgMdU0Iykf5kZmQh/TyT5tEZNSu13 jV1JFZhztBk/4/gL4zdBRjdLOw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyJT4BM0VJDnRhFsNGgIOgprVcAlif2kPfzDo6GSwh62Cee6KOeqyh5Qvz5AlOcVRMwtovRPA== X-Received: by 2002:a7b:c934:: with SMTP id h20mr27539348wml.103.1580719844806; Mon, 03 Feb 2020 00:50:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.0.102] (84-33-65-46.dyn.eolo.it. [84.33.65.46]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id a16sm23596922wrt.37.2020.02.03.00.50.43 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 03 Feb 2020 00:50:44 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\)) Subject: Re: [PATCH BUGFIX 0/6] block, bfq: series of fixes, and not only, for some recently reported issues From: Paolo Valente In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2020 09:50:42 +0100 Cc: linux-block , linux-kernel , noreply-spamdigest via bfq-iosched , Oleksandr Natalenko , patdung100@gmail.com, cevich@redhat.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <20200131092409.10867-1-paolo.valente@linaro.org> To: Jens Axboe X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11) Sender: linux-block-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-block@vger.kernel.org > Il giorno 1 feb 2020, alle ore 05:48, Jens Axboe ha = scritto: >=20 > On 1/31/20 2:24 AM, Paolo Valente wrote: >> Hi Jens, >> these patches are mostly fixes for the issues reported in [1, 2]. All >> patches have been publicly tested in the dev version of BFQ. >>=20 >> Thanks, >> Paolo >>=20 >> [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=3D1767539 >> [2] https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3D205447 >>=20 >> Paolo Valente (6): >> block, bfq: do not plug I/O for bfq_queues with no proc refs >> block, bfq: do not insert oom queue into position tree >> block, bfq: get extra ref to prevent a queue from being freed during = a >> group move >> block, bfq: extend incomplete name of field on_st >> block, bfq: get a ref to a group when adding it to a service tree >> block, bfq: clarify the goal of bfq_split_bfqq() >>=20 >> block/bfq-cgroup.c | 12 ++++++++++-- >> block/bfq-iosched.c | 20 +++++++++++++++++++- >> block/bfq-iosched.h | 3 ++- >> block/bfq-wf2q.c | 27 ++++++++++++++++++++++----- >> 4 files changed, 53 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) >=20 > I wish some of these had been sent sooner, they really should have = been > sent in a few weeks ago. Just took a quick look at the bug reports, = and > at least one of the bugs mentions looks like it had a fix available 2 > months ago. The first fix(es) didn't work with the issue reported in [2], which was in turn very similar to that in [1]. Since I didn't know why, I couldn't be sure that the first fix was correct and did not introduce other issues. > Have they been in -next? Nope. I proposed the full series in this thread, the day after the full fix was confirmed to work. I didn't propose any partial series patch before, for the above reason. > They are all marked as bug fixes, > should they have stable tags? I guess they should, as fixes to bugs that may cause crashes. If there are other rules for these tags, I'm sorry but I'm not aware of them. > All of them, some of them? The only two non-fix patches are non-functional, trivial code improvements made along the way. Submitting a V2. Thanks, Paolo >=20 > --=20 > Jens Axboe