It's some block condition that's not really related to the inode, but
still need to move it to b_more_io_wait to prevent possible busy looping.
CC: Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@xxxxxxxxx>
---
fs/fs-writeback.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
--- linux-next.orig/fs/fs-writeback.c 2011-10-20 22:43:42.000000000 +0800
+++ linux-next/fs/fs-writeback.c 2011-10-20 22:46:53.000000000 +0800
@@ -652,17 +652,17 @@ static long __writeback_inodes_wb(struct
struct super_block *sb = inode->i_sb;
if (!grab_super_passive(sb)) {
/*
* grab_super_passive() may fail consistently due to
* s_umount being grabbed by someone else. Don't use
* requeue_io() to avoid busy retrying the inode/sb.
*/
- redirty_tail(inode, wb);
+ requeue_io_wait(inode, wb);
continue;
}
wrote += writeback_sb_inodes(sb, wb, work);
drop_super(sb);
/* refer to the same tests at the end of writeback_sb_inodes */
if (wrote) {
if (time_is_before_jiffies(start_time + HZ / 10UL))
--
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
