On Fri, Aug 07 2009, Yan Zheng wrote:
> On 08/07/2009 02:50 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 07 2009, Yan Zheng wrote:
> >> invalidate_inode_pages2_range may return -EBUSY occasionally
> >> which results Oops. This patch fixes the issue by moving
> >> invalidate_inode_pages2_range into a loop and keeping calling
> >> it until the return value is not -EBUSY.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Yan Zheng <zheng.yan@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >>
> >> ---
> >> diff -urp 1/fs/btrfs/relocation.c 2/fs/btrfs/relocation.c
> >> --- 1/fs/btrfs/relocation.c 2009-07-29 10:03:04.367858774 +0800
> >> +++ 2/fs/btrfs/relocation.c 2009-08-07 13:26:43.882147138 +0800
> >> @@ -2553,8 +2553,13 @@ int relocate_inode_pages(struct inode *i
> >> last_index = (start + len - 1) >> PAGE_CACHE_SHIFT;
> >>
> >> /* make sure the dirty trick played by the caller work */
> >> - ret = invalidate_inode_pages2_range(inode->i_mapping,
> >> - first_index, last_index);
> >> + while (1) {
> >> + ret = invalidate_inode_pages2_range(inode->i_mapping,
> >> + first_index, last_index);
> >> + if (ret != -EBUSY)
> >> + break;
> >> + cond_resched();
> >> + }
> >
> > If it returns EBUSY, would it not make more sense to call
> > filemap_write_and_wait_range() instead of hammering on invalidate?
> >
>
> The pages to invalidate are not dirty, they are from page read-ahead.
> Actually I have no idea how invalidate_inode_pages2_range can return
> -EBUSY here. (the only user of the inode is the balancer, and it does
> not hold references to the pages)
Weird, I looked it up, and it already does a writeback wait. But I guess
that's not your issue. Patch still looks like a hack though, it would be
far better to figure out why it returns EBUSY and fix/wait appropriately
for that to pass.
--
Jens Axboe
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
