From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jens Axboe Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/6] writeback: fix writeback_inodes_wb from writeback_inodes_sb Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2010 14:29:22 +0200 Message-ID: <4C0F8922.8070702@kernel.dk> References: <20100608161424.GA11735@lst.de> <20100608161458.GE11735@lst.de> <4C0E9F4B.7090204@kernel.dk> <20100609122552.GA23216@lst.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org To: Christoph Hellwig Return-path: Received: from 0122700014.0.fullrate.dk ([95.166.99.235]:51618 "EHLO kernel.dk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754760Ab0FIMgu (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 Jun 2010 08:36:50 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20100609122552.GA23216@lst.de> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 2010-06-09 14:25, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Tue, Jun 08, 2010 at 09:51:39PM +0200, Jens Axboe wrote: >> On 08/06/10 18.14, Christoph Hellwig wrote: >>> When we call writeback_inodes_wb from writeback_inodes_sb we always have >>> s_umount held, which currently makes the whole operation a no-op. >>> >>> But if we are called to write out inodes for a specific superblock we always >>> have s_umount held, so replace the incorrect logic checking for WB_SYNC_ALL >>> which only worked by coincidence with the proper check for an explicit >>> superblock argument. >> >> This is tons better than the pinning, I like it a lot. > > Unfortunately I accidentally removed the requeue_io call when we fail > to pin the inode. This leads to softlockups after heavy I/O load. > > Please fold the patch below into this one, or if not possible add it > to the end of the series. Oops, not good. I already merged and pushed them out, so I added it to the end instead. -- Jens Axboe