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?
Honza
> Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> mm/backing-dev.c | 14 +++++++++++++-
> 1 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/backing-dev.c b/mm/backing-dev.c
> index fd93566..3d3accb 100644
> --- a/mm/backing-dev.c
> +++ b/mm/backing-dev.c
> @@ -668,7 +668,19 @@ void bdi_destroy(struct backing_dev_info *bdi)
> {
> int i;
>
> - WARN_ON(bdi_has_dirty_io(bdi));
> + /*
> + * Splice our entries to the default_backing_dev_info, if this
> + * bdi disappears
> + */
> + if (bdi_has_dirty_io(bdi)) {
> + struct bdi_writeback *dst = &default_backing_dev_info.wb;
> +
> + spin_lock(&inode_lock);
> + list_splice(&bdi->wb.b_dirty, &dst->b_dirty);
> + list_splice(&bdi->wb.b_io, &dst->b_io);
> + list_splice(&bdi->wb.b_more_io, &dst->b_more_io);
> + spin_unlock(&inode_lock);
> + }
>
> bdi_unregister(bdi);
>
> --
> 1.6.4.1.207.g68ea
>
--
Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx>
SUSE Labs, CR
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
