Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 16 Sep 2009 15:12:49 +0200 | From | Jan Kara <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 10/11] writeback: splice dirty inode entries to default bdi on bdi_destroy() |
| |
On Tue 15-09-09 20:16:56, Jens Axboe wrote: > We cannot safely ensure that the inodes are all gone at this point > in time, and we must not destroy this bdi with inodes having off it. ^^^ hanging
> So just splice our entries to the default bdi since that one will > always persist. BTW: Why can't we make sure all inodes on the BDI are clean when we destroy it? Common sence would suggest that we better should be able to do it :). Maybe it's because most users of private BDI do not call bdi_unregister but rather directly bdi_destroy? Is this correct behavior?
Honza
> Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@oracle.com> > --- > mm/backing-dev.c | 14 +++++++++++++- > 1 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/mm/backing-dev.c b/mm/backing-dev.c > index fd93566..3d3accb 100644 > --- a/mm/backing-dev.c > +++ b/mm/backing-dev.c > @@ -668,7 +668,19 @@ void bdi_destroy(struct backing_dev_info *bdi) > { > int i; > > - WARN_ON(bdi_has_dirty_io(bdi)); > + /* > + * Splice our entries to the default_backing_dev_info, if this > + * bdi disappears > + */ > + if (bdi_has_dirty_io(bdi)) { > + struct bdi_writeback *dst = &default_backing_dev_info.wb; > + > + spin_lock(&inode_lock); > + list_splice(&bdi->wb.b_dirty, &dst->b_dirty); > + list_splice(&bdi->wb.b_io, &dst->b_io); > + list_splice(&bdi->wb.b_more_io, &dst->b_more_io); > + spin_unlock(&inode_lock); > + } > > bdi_unregister(bdi); > > -- > 1.6.4.1.207.g68ea > -- Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> SUSE Labs, CR
| |