From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Yan Zheng Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix balance Oops Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2009 15:16:00 +0800 Message-ID: <4A7BD4B0.2080104@oracle.com> References: <4A7BC631.3040106@oracle.com> <20090807065039.GR12579@kernel.dk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, Chris Mason To: Jens Axboe Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20090807065039.GR12579@kernel.dk> List-ID: On 08/07/2009 02:50 PM, Jens Axboe wrote: > On Fri, Aug 07 2009, Yan Zheng wrote: >> invalidate_inode_pages2_range may return -EBUSY occasionally >> which results Oops. This patch fixes the issue by moving >> invalidate_inode_pages2_range into a loop and keeping calling >> it until the return value is not -EBUSY. >> >> Signed-off-by: Yan Zheng >> >> --- >> diff -urp 1/fs/btrfs/relocation.c 2/fs/btrfs/relocation.c >> --- 1/fs/btrfs/relocation.c 2009-07-29 10:03:04.367858774 +0800 >> +++ 2/fs/btrfs/relocation.c 2009-08-07 13:26:43.882147138 +0800 >> @@ -2553,8 +2553,13 @@ int relocate_inode_pages(struct inode *i >> last_index = (start + len - 1) >> PAGE_CACHE_SHIFT; >> >> /* make sure the dirty trick played by the caller work */ >> - ret = invalidate_inode_pages2_range(inode->i_mapping, >> - first_index, last_index); >> + while (1) { >> + ret = invalidate_inode_pages2_range(inode->i_mapping, >> + first_index, last_index); >> + if (ret != -EBUSY) >> + break; >> + cond_resched(); >> + } > > If it returns EBUSY, would it not make more sense to call > filemap_write_and_wait_range() instead of hammering on invalidate? > The pages to invalidate are not dirty, they are from page read-ahead. Actually I have no idea how invalidate_inode_pages2_range can return -EBUSY here. (the only user of the inode is the balancer, and it does not hold references to the pages) Regards Yan, Zheng