It's some block condition that's not really related to the inode, but still need to move it to b_more_io_wait to prevent possible busy looping. CC: Jan Kara Signed-off-by: Wu Fengguang --- fs/fs-writeback.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) --- linux-next.orig/fs/fs-writeback.c 2011-10-20 22:43:42.000000000 +0800 +++ linux-next/fs/fs-writeback.c 2011-10-20 22:46:53.000000000 +0800 @@ -652,17 +652,17 @@ static long __writeback_inodes_wb(struct struct super_block *sb = inode->i_sb; if (!grab_super_passive(sb)) { /* * grab_super_passive() may fail consistently due to * s_umount being grabbed by someone else. Don't use * requeue_io() to avoid busy retrying the inode/sb. */ - redirty_tail(inode, wb); + requeue_io_wait(inode, wb); continue; } wrote += writeback_sb_inodes(sb, wb, work); drop_super(sb); /* refer to the same tests at the end of writeback_sb_inodes */ if (wrote) { if (time_is_before_jiffies(start_time + HZ / 10UL)) -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/