On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 03:28:42AM +0900, OGAWA Hirofumi wrote:
>
> If bdi has BDI_CAP_NO_WRITEBACK, bdi_forker_thread() doesn't start
> writeback thread. This means there is no consumer of work item made
> by bdi_queue_work().
>
> This adds to checking of !bdi_cap_writeback_dirty(sb->s_bdi) before
> calling bdi_queue_work(), otherwise queued work never be consumed.
>
> Signed-off-by: OGAWA Hirofumi <hirof...@mail.parknet.co.jp>
> ---
>
> fs/fs-writeback.c | 7 +++++--
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff -puN fs/fs-writeback.c~noop_backing_dev_info-check-fix fs/fs-writeback.c
> --- linux/fs/fs-writeback.c~noop_backing_dev_info-check-fix 2012-09-11
> 06:12:30.000000000 +0900
> +++ linux-hirofumi/fs/fs-writeback.c 2012-09-11 06:12:30.000000000 +0900
> @@ -120,6 +120,9 @@ __bdi_start_writeback(struct backing_dev
> {
> struct wb_writeback_work *work;
>
> + if (!bdi_cap_writeback_dirty(bdi))
> + return;
Will someone in the current kernel actually call
__bdi_start_writeback() on a BDI_CAP_NO_WRITEBACK bdi?
If the answer is no, VM_BUG_ON(!bdi_cap_writeback_dirty(bdi)) looks better.
Thanks,
Fengguang
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
