On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 5:45 PM, Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 08, 2012 at 05:07:36PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote: >> On Fri 08-06-12 10:36:13, Ted Tso wrote: >> > >> > I can reproduce this fairly easily by using ext4 w/o a journal, running >> > under KVM with 1024megs memory, with fsstress (xfstests #13): > > Good catch, thanks! > >> Argh, I wonder how come I didn't hit this. Does attached patch fix the >> problem? > >> diff --git a/fs/fs-writeback.c b/fs/fs-writeback.c >> index 8d2fb8c..41a3ccf 100644 >> --- a/fs/fs-writeback.c >> +++ b/fs/fs-writeback.c >> @@ -664,6 +664,7 @@ static long writeback_sb_inodes(struct super_block *sb, >> /* Wait for I_SYNC. This function drops i_lock... */ >> inode_sleep_on_writeback(inode); >> /* Inode may be gone, start again */ >> + spin_lock(&wb->list_lock); >> continue; >> } > > That looks like the fix. So I pushed it to writeback-for-next. > Thanks for the quick fixing! > s/writeback-for-next/writeback-for-linus ? - Sedat - > I'm yet to setup and run xfstests regularly, so as to catch such kind > of problems earlier in future. > > Thanks, > Fengguang > -- > 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 -- 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
