From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda3.sgi.com [192.48.176.15]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id mB479LM4031913 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2008 01:09:22 -0600 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id 4F04C16904DC for ; Wed, 3 Dec 2008 23:09:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [18.85.46.34]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id hwIMVcvLYaq1qUXT for ; Wed, 03 Dec 2008 23:09:21 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 02:08:50 -0500 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove unnecessary assertion Message-ID: <20081204070850.GC29531@infradead.org> References: <49377863.1070109@sgi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <49377863.1070109@sgi.com> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Lachlan McIlroy Cc: xfs-oss On Thu, Dec 04, 2008 at 05:27:47PM +1100, Lachlan McIlroy wrote: > Hit this assert because an inode was tagged with XFS_ICI_RECLAIM_TAG but > not XFS_IRECLAIMABLE|XFS_IRECLAIM. This is because xfs_iget_cache_hit() > first clears XFS_IRECLAIMABLE and then calls __xfs_inode_clear_reclaim_tag() > while only holding the pag_ici_lock in read mode so we can race with > xfs_reclaim_inodes_ag(). Looks like xfs_reclaim_inodes_ag() will do the > right thing anyway so just remove the assert. > > Thanks to Christoph for pointing out where the problem was. Yeah, given that I ran with this patch for a while you have my ACK for it. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs