[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140325220938.GX4173@kvack.org>
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 18:09:38 -0400
From: Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@...ck.org>
To: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Cc: Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: bdi has dirty inode after umount of ext4 fs in 3.4.83
On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 02:14:16PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> So the dirty inode is almost certainly a block device inode. Another clue
> is that fsync(2) actually doesn't clean inode dirty state (especially not
> for block device inodes since that inode is a special one and fs usually
> doesn't get to inspecting it). sync(2) does in general clear inode dirty
> state because that's handled by flusher thread. However if ->sync_fs()
> dirties the block device inode, subsequent sync_blockdev() call only writes
> the data but doesn't clean the inode state. So even with sync(2) it can
> happen the block device inode remains dirty.
> In general inode dirty state isn't reliable. I_DIRTY_DATA can be set when
> inode is in fact clean. You have to use mapping_tagged(inode->i_mapping,
> PAGECACHE_TAG_DIRTY) to determine whether the inode has actually any dirty
> data.
That is indeed the case. I checked the contents of the inode, and none of
the buffers attached to that inode were dirty.
Is there any desire to fix this? Seeing an inode on the b_dirty list that
isn't really an inode that contains any data doesn't make a whole lot of
sense.
-ben
--
"Thought is the essence of where you are now."
--
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