From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Wu Fengguang Subject: Re: xfstests 073 regression Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2011 19:44:28 +0800 Message-ID: <20110802114428.GA6014@localhost> References: <20110729142121.GA21149@localhost> <20110730134422.GA1884@infradead.org> <20110731151014.GA23106@localhost> <20110731234749.GQ5404@dastard> <20110801012813.GR5404@dastard> <20110801020951.GA12870@dastard> <20110801112330.GA27190@infradead.org> <20110801165242.GA18802@infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Dave Chinner , Linus Torvalds , Jan Kara , Andrew Morton , "linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" , LKML To: Christoph Hellwig Return-path: Received: from mga14.intel.com ([143.182.124.37]:47569 "EHLO mga14.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754006Ab1HBLob (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Aug 2011 07:44:31 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110801165242.GA18802@infradead.org> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Aug 02, 2011 at 12:52:42AM +0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > wb_check_background_flush is indeed what we're hitting. That means s_umount is NOT held by another queued writeback work. > See the trace output using a patch inspired by Curt's below: > > # tracer: nop > # > # TASK-PID CPU# TIMESTAMP FUNCTION > # | | | | | > <...>-4279 [000] 113.034052: writeback_grab_super_failed: bdi 7:0: sb_dev 0:0 nr_pages=9223372036854775807 sync_mode=0 kupdate=0 range_cyclic=1 background=1 reason=wb_check_background_flush > <...>-4279 [000] 113.034052: writeback_grab_super_failed: bdi 7:0: sb_dev 0:0 nr_pages=9223372036854775807 sync_mode=0 kupdate=0 range_cyclic=1 background=1 reason=wb_check_background_flush > <...>-4279 [000] 113.034052: writeback_grab_super_failed: bdi 7:0: sb_dev 0:0 nr_pages=9223372036854775807 sync_mode=0 kupdate=0 range_cyclic=1 background=1 reason=wb_check_background_flush What's that bdi 7:0? And sb_dev=0:0, nr_pages=9223372036854775807=0x7fffffffffffffff. All are indicating some special bdi/inode. Thanks, Fengguang