Hello, Jan. On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 05:57:54PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote: > > Yeah, right, so the root cause is that we're walking the wb_list while > > holding lock and expecting the object to stay there even after lock is > > released. Hmm... we can use a mutex to synchronize the two > > destruction paths. It's not like they're hot paths anyway. > > Hmm, do you mean like having a per-bdi or even a global mutex that would > protect whole wb_shutdown()? Yes, that should work and we could get rid of > WB_shutting_down bit as well with that. Just it seems a bit strange to Yeap. > introduce a mutex only to synchronize these two shutdown paths - usually > locks protect data structures and in this case we have cgwb_lock for > that so it looks like a duplication from a first look. Yeah, I feel a bit reluctant too but I think that's the right thing to do here. This is an inherently weird case where there are two ways that an object can go away with the immediate drain requirement from one side. It's not a hot path and the dumber the synchronization the better, right? Thanks. -- tejun
