On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 05:42:09AM +0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 22:42:19 +0800
> Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > @@ -55,13 +55,16 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(I_BDEV);
> > static void bdev_inode_switch_bdi(struct inode *inode,
> > struct backing_dev_info *dst)
> > {
> > - spin_lock(&inode_wb_list_lock);
> > + struct backing_dev_info *old = inode->i_data.backing_dev_info;
> > +
> > + bdi_lock_two(&old->wb, &dst->wb);
> > spin_lock(&inode->i_lock);
> > inode->i_data.backing_dev_info = dst;
> > if (inode->i_state & I_DIRTY)
> > list_move(&inode->i_wb_list, &dst->wb.b_dirty);
> > spin_unlock(&inode->i_lock);
> > - spin_unlock(&inode_wb_list_lock);
> > + spin_unlock(&old->wb.list_lock);
> > + spin_unlock(&dst->wb.list_lock);
> > }
>
> Has this patch been well tested under lockdep?
Yes, it runs OK on concurrent dd and dd+tar workloads over all major
filesystems, including NFS. Lockdep is always enabled in my kernels,
no warnings are found in dmesg.
Thanks,
Fengguang
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>