From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758134AbZIPN3y (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Sep 2009 09:29:54 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752703AbZIPN3v (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Sep 2009 09:29:51 -0400 Received: from cantor.suse.de ([195.135.220.2]:49720 "EHLO mx1.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752648AbZIPN3u (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Sep 2009 09:29:50 -0400 Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 15:29:52 +0200 From: Jan Kara To: Jens Axboe Cc: Jan Kara , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, chris.mason@oracle.com, hch@infradead.org, tytso@mit.edu, akpm@linux-foundation.org, trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/11] writeback: splice dirty inode entries to default bdi on bdi_destroy() Message-ID: <20090916132952.GI26030@duck.suse.cz> References: <1253038617-30204-1-git-send-email-jens.axboe@oracle.com> <1253038617-30204-11-git-send-email-jens.axboe@oracle.com> <20090916131249.GG26030@duck.suse.cz> <20090916132108.GP23126@kernel.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090916132108.GP23126@kernel.dk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed 16-09-09 15:21:08, Jens Axboe wrote: > On Wed, Sep 16 2009, Jan Kara wrote: > > On Tue 15-09-09 20:16:56, Jens Axboe wrote: > > > We cannot safely ensure that the inodes are all gone at this point > > > in time, and we must not destroy this bdi with inodes having off it. > > ^^^ hanging > > > > > So just splice our entries to the default bdi since that one will > > > always persist. > > BTW: Why can't we make sure all inodes on the BDI are clean when we > > destroy it? Common sence would suggest that we better should be able to do > > it :). > > Maybe it's because most users of private BDI do not call bdi_unregister > > but rather directly bdi_destroy? Is this correct behavior? > Not sure yet, it's on the TODO. This basically works around the problem > for now at least. With dm at least, I'm seeing inodes still hanging off > the bdi after we have done a sync_blockdev(bdev, 1);. Do you really mean sync_blockdev() or fsync_bdev()? Because the first one just synces the blockdev's mapping not the filesystem... Honza -- Jan Kara SUSE Labs, CR