Due to my faux pas of top posting (see
http://www.zip.com.au/~akpm/linux/patches/stuff/top-posting.txt) I am
resending this email.
On Nov 28, 2007 4:34 PM, Fengguang Wu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Could you demonstrate the situation? Or if I guess it right, could it
> be fixed by the following patch? (not a nack: If so, your patch could
> also be considered as a general purpose improvement, instead of a bug
> fix.)
>
> diff --git a/fs/fs-writeback.c b/fs/fs-writeback.c
> index 0fca820..62e62e2 100644
> --- a/fs/fs-writeback.c
> +++ b/fs/fs-writeback.c
> @@ -301,7 +301,7 @@ __sync_single_inode(struct inode *inode, struct
> writeback_control *wbc)
> * Someone redirtied the inode while were writing back
> * the pages.
> */
> - redirty_tail(inode);
> + requeue_io(inode);
> } else if (atomic_read(&inode->i_count)) {
> /*
> * The inode is clean, inuse
>
By testing the situation I can confirm that the one line patch above
fixes the problem.
I will continue testing some other cases to see if it cause any other
issues but I don't expect it to.
I will post this change for 2.6.24 and list Feng as author. If that's
ok with Feng.
As for the original patch I will resubmit it for 2.6.25 as a general
purpose improvement.
mrubin
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
