Hi Andrew,
Can you please review the patch below and tell me whether it is
technically correct ?
Or, can you please suggest a suitable change for solving this ?
Thanks.
Rajan.
> On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 10:41 AM, Rajan Aggarwal
> <rajan.aggarwal85@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> The bdi_writeback_thread function does not use spin_lock to
>> see if the work_list is empty.
>>
>> If the list is not empty, and if an interrupt happens before we
>> set the current->state to TASK_RUNNING then we could be stuck in
>> a schedule() due to kernel preemption.
>>
>> This patch acquires and releases the wb_lock to avoid this scenario.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Rajan Aggarwal <rajan.aggarwal85@xxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> fs/fs-writeback.c | 3 +++
>> 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/fs-writeback.c b/fs/fs-writeback.c
>> index 04cf3b9..e333898 100644
>> --- a/fs/fs-writeback.c
>> +++ b/fs/fs-writeback.c
>> @@ -936,11 +936,14 @@ int bdi_writeback_thread(void *data)
>> if (pages_written)
>> wb->last_active = jiffies;
>>
>> + spin_lock_bh(&bdi->wb_lock);
>> set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
>> if (!list_empty(&bdi->work_list) || kthread_should_stop()) {
>> __set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING);
>> + spin_unlock_bh(&bdi->wb_lock);
>> continue;
>> }
>> + spin_unlock_bh(&bdi->wb_lock);
>>
>> if (wb_has_dirty_io(wb) && dirty_writeback_interval)
>> schedule_timeout(msecs_to_jiffies(dirty_writeback_interval * 10));
>> --
>> 1.7.4.1
>>
>>
>
--
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
