On Thu 20-10-11 23:22:47, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> 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>
Acked-by: Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx>
Honza
> ---
> 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))
>
>
--
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
