Re: [PATCH 7/7] writeback: requeue_io_wait() when failed to grabsuperblock

[Jan Kara]

On Thu 20-10-11 23:22:47, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> It's some block condition that's not really related to the inode, but
> still need to move it to b_more_io_wait to prevent possible busy looping.
> 
> CC: Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@xxxxxxxxx>
  Acked-by: Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx>

								Honza
> ---
>  fs/fs-writeback.c |    2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> --- linux-next.orig/fs/fs-writeback.c	2011-10-20 22:43:42.000000000 +0800
> +++ linux-next/fs/fs-writeback.c	2011-10-20 22:46:53.000000000 +0800
> @@ -652,17 +652,17 @@ static long __writeback_inodes_wb(struct
>  		struct super_block *sb = inode->i_sb;
>  
>  		if (!grab_super_passive(sb)) {
>  			/*
>  			 * grab_super_passive() may fail consistently due to
>  			 * s_umount being grabbed by someone else. Don't use
>  			 * requeue_io() to avoid busy retrying the inode/sb.
>  			 */
> -			redirty_tail(inode, wb);
> +			requeue_io_wait(inode, wb);
>  			continue;
>  		}
>  		wrote += writeback_sb_inodes(sb, wb, work);
>  		drop_super(sb);
>  
>  		/* refer to the same tests at the end of writeback_sb_inodes */
>  		if (wrote) {
>  			if (time_is_before_jiffies(start_time + HZ / 10UL))
> 
> 
-- 
Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx>
SUSE Labs, CR
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/