Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 2 Aug 2011 19:44:28 +0800 | From | Wu Fengguang <> | Subject | Re: xfstests 073 regression |
| |
On Tue, Aug 02, 2011 at 12:52:42AM +0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > wb_check_background_flush is indeed what we're hitting.
That means s_umount is NOT held by another queued writeback work.
> See the trace output using a patch inspired by Curt's below: > > # tracer: nop > # > # TASK-PID CPU# TIMESTAMP FUNCTION > # | | | | | > <...>-4279 [000] 113.034052: writeback_grab_super_failed: bdi 7:0: sb_dev 0:0 nr_pages=9223372036854775807 sync_mode=0 kupdate=0 range_cyclic=1 background=1 reason=wb_check_background_flush > <...>-4279 [000] 113.034052: writeback_grab_super_failed: bdi 7:0: sb_dev 0:0 nr_pages=9223372036854775807 sync_mode=0 kupdate=0 range_cyclic=1 background=1 reason=wb_check_background_flush > <...>-4279 [000] 113.034052: writeback_grab_super_failed: bdi 7:0: sb_dev 0:0 nr_pages=9223372036854775807 sync_mode=0 kupdate=0 range_cyclic=1 background=1 reason=wb_check_background_flush
What's that bdi 7:0? And sb_dev=0:0, nr_pages=9223372036854775807=0x7fffffffffffffff.
All are indicating some special bdi/inode.
Thanks, Fengguang
| |