[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160219222609.GC17997@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2016 22:26:09 +0000
From: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Tahsin Erdogan <tahsin@...gle.com>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
Nauman Rafique <nauman@...gle.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH block/for-4.5-fixes] writeback: keep superblock pinned
during cgroup writeback association switches
On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 05:15:12PM -0500, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > IOW, while fs shutdown may be async, making it *always* async would be a bad
> > bug. And bumping ->s_active does just that.
> >
> > I'd go for trylock inside that work + making generic_shutdown_super()
> > kill all such works. I assume that it *can* be abandoned in situation
> > when we know that sync_filesystem() is about to be called and that
> > said sync_filesystem() won't, in turn, schedule any such works, of course...
>
> I'll make generic_shutdown_super() to kill all such work items. I
> don't think the work item itself would need further locking tho. Can
> you please elaborate why you thought adding trylock to the work would
> be necessary?
Umm... Not much, except that it would make the life cycle rules a bit
more regular.
Is that code OK with e.g. running in parallel with remounting filesystem r/o?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists