If an inode's state has I_WILL_FREE flag set, the inode will be
freed soon, so there is no point in trying to switch the inode
to a different cgwb.
I_WILL_FREE was ignored since the introduction of the inode switching,
so it looks like it doesn't lead to any noticeable issues for a user.
This is why the patch is not intended for a stable backport.
Suggested-by: Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Roman Gushchin <guro@xxxxxx>
Acked-by: Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx>
Acked-by: Dennis Zhou <dennis@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
fs/fs-writeback.c | 8 ++++----
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/fs-writeback.c b/fs/fs-writeback.c
index e91980f49388..bd99890599e0 100644
--- a/fs/fs-writeback.c
+++ b/fs/fs-writeback.c
@@ -389,10 +389,10 @@ static void inode_switch_wbs_work_fn(struct work_struct *work)
xa_lock_irq(&mapping->i_pages);
/*
- * Once I_FREEING is visible under i_lock, the eviction path owns
- * the inode and we shouldn't modify ->i_io_list.
+ * Once I_FREEING or I_WILL_FREE are visible under i_lock, the eviction
+ * path owns the inode and we shouldn't modify ->i_io_list.
*/
- if (unlikely(inode->i_state & I_FREEING))
+ if (unlikely(inode->i_state & (I_FREEING | I_WILL_FREE)))
goto skip_switch;
trace_inode_switch_wbs(inode, old_wb, new_wb);
@@ -517,7 +517,7 @@ static void inode_switch_wbs(struct inode *inode, int new_wb_id)
/* while holding I_WB_SWITCH, no one else can update the association */
spin_lock(&inode->i_lock);
if (!(inode->i_sb->s_flags & SB_ACTIVE) ||
- inode->i_state & (I_WB_SWITCH | I_FREEING) ||
+ inode->i_state & (I_WB_SWITCH | I_FREEING | I_WILL_FREE) ||
inode_to_wb(inode) == isw->new_wb) {
spin_unlock(&inode->i_lock);
goto out_free;
--
2.31.1
