xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: 2.6.31 xfs_fs_destroy_inode: cannot reclaim

To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: 2.6.31 xfs_fs_destroy_inode: cannot reclaim
From: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2009 14:40:48 +1100
Cc: Patrick Schreurs <patrick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Tommy van Leeuwen <tommy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Bas Couwenberg <bas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, XFS List <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <20091019035426.GB18296@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <20090930124104.GA7463@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4AC60D27.9060703@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20091005214348.GA15448@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4ACB080D.3010708@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20091007011926.GB32032@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4AD18C8D.90808@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20091012233854.GA29446@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20091019011600.GO9464@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20091019035426.GB18296@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 11:54:26PM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 12:16:00PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > +  * The hash lock here protects a thread in xfs_iget from racing with
> > > +  * us on recycling the inode.  Once we have the XFS_IRECLAIM flag set
> > > +  * it will not touch it.
> > >    */
> > > - write_lock(&pag->pag_ici_lock);
> > 
> > Did you mean to remove this write_lock? The patch does not remove
> > the unlocks....
> 
> It's taken by the caller.

Ah, I guess I need to see the whole patch series, then.

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>