Thread (3 messages) 3 messages, 2 authors, 2014-02-27

Re: [PATCH 2/2] bdi: Avoid oops on device removal

From: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Date: 2014-02-27 21:32:52
Also in: linux-fsdevel, lkml

Possibly related (same subject, not in this thread)

On Thu 27-02-14 15:07:48, Tejun Heo wrote:
Hello,

On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 11:29:14PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
quoted
+static void bdi_wakeup_thread(struct backing_dev_info *bdi)
+{
+	spin_lock_bh(&bdi->wb_lock);
+	if (test_bit(BDI_registered, &bdi->state))
+		mod_delayed_work(bdi_wq, &bdi->wb.dwork, 0);
+	spin_unlock_bh(&bdi->wb_lock);
+}
I wonder whether this can be smarter without requiring wb_lock each
timer but this probably is the simplest for -stable backports.
  We could be clever, check whether the work is already queued for
execution and bail out without taking wb_lock if yes (that would also
save us some unnecessary juggling in try_to_grab_pending() for the situation
were the work is already queued). But I'm not sure how to cleanly implement
this...
quoted
 static void bdi_queue_work(struct backing_dev_info *bdi,
 			   struct wb_writeback_work *work)
 {
 	trace_writeback_queue(bdi, work);
 
 	spin_lock_bh(&bdi->wb_lock);
+	if (!test_bit(BDI_registered, &bdi->state)) {
+		if (work->done)
+			complete(work->done);
+		goto out_unlock;
+	}
 	list_add_tail(&work->list, &bdi->work_list);
-	spin_unlock_bh(&bdi->wb_lock);
-
 	mod_delayed_work(bdi_wq, &bdi->wb.dwork, 0);
+out_unlock:
+	spin_unlock_bh(&bdi->wb_lock);
 }
 
+
+
Why three blank lines?
  A mistake. Will fix.
Other than that,

Reviewed-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
  Thanks!

							Honza
-- 
Jan Kara [off-list ref]
SUSE Labs, CR
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help