Skip to content

Commit 0e99581

Browse files
author
Wu Fengguang
committed
don't busy retry the inode on failed grab_super_passive()
This fixes a soft lockup on conditions a) the flusher is working on a work by __bdi_start_writeback(), while b) someone else calls writeback_inodes_sb*() or sync_inodes_sb(), which grab sb->s_umount and enqueue a new work for the flusher to execute The s_umount grabbed by (b) will fail the grab_super_passive() in (a). Then if the inode is requeued, wb_writeback() will busy retry on it. As a result, wb_writeback() loops for ever without releasing wb->list_lock, which further blocks other tasks. Fix the busy loop by redirtying the inode. This may undesirably delay the writeback of the inode, however most likely it will be picked up soon by the queued work by writeback_inodes_sb*(), sync_inodes_sb() or even writeback_inodes_wb(). bug url: http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-fsdevel/msg47292.html Reported-by: Christoph Hellwig <[email protected]> Tested-by: Christoph Hellwig <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Wu Fengguang <[email protected]>
1 parent 250f8e3 commit 0e99581

File tree

1 file changed

+6
-1
lines changed

1 file changed

+6
-1
lines changed

fs/fs-writeback.c

+6-1
Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
@@ -618,7 +618,12 @@ static long __writeback_inodes_wb(struct bdi_writeback *wb,
618618
struct super_block *sb = inode->i_sb;
619619

620620
if (!grab_super_passive(sb)) {
621-
requeue_io(inode, wb);
621+
/*
622+
* grab_super_passive() may fail consistently due to
623+
* s_umount being grabbed by someone else. Don't use
624+
* requeue_io() to avoid busy retrying the inode/sb.
625+
*/
626+
redirty_tail(inode, wb);
622627
continue;
623628
}
624629
wrote += writeback_sb_inodes(sb, wb, work);

0 commit comments

Comments
 (0)