[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <201005210207.o4L27B7r004287@demeter.kernel.org>
Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 02:07:11 GMT
From: bugzilla-daemon@...zilla.kernel.org
To: linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [Bug 15906] performance regression in "umount" of filesystems using
barriers
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15906
--- Comment #27 from Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com> 2010-05-21 02:07:01 ---
static int pin_sb_for_writeback(struct writeback_control *wbc,
struct inode *inode, struct super_block **psb)
{
struct super_block *sb = inode->i_sb;
/*
* If this sb is already pinned, nothing more to do. If not and
* *psb is non-NULL, unpin the old one first
*/
if (sb == *psb)
return 0;
else if (*psb)
unpin_sb_for_writeback(psb);
/*
* Caller must already hold the ref for this
*/
if (wbc->sync_mode == WB_SYNC_ALL || wbc->sb_pinned) {
WARN_ON(!rwsem_is_locked(&sb->s_umount)); <<----- here
return 0;
}
http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/axboe/linux-2.6-block.git;a=commitdiff;h=e913fc825dc685a444cb4c1d0f9d32f372f5986
is what Jens had upstream, and I think
http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/axboe/linux-2.6-block.git;a=commitdiff;h=30fd1e551a730d942e91109762c942786be0ef7c
is the fix for the issue you see here...
> Even if the writeout itself isn't a data integrity operation, we need
> to ensure that the caller doesn't drop the sb umount sem before we
> have actually done the writeback.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are watching the assignee of the bug.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists