https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=208565
--- Comment #7 from yuch...@huawei.com --- On 2020/7/17 1:15, bugzilla-dae...@bugzilla.kernel.org wrote: > https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=208565 > > Jaegeuk Kim (jaeg...@kernel.org) changed: > > What |Removed |Added > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > CC| |jaeg...@kernel.org > > --- Comment #1 from Jaegeuk Kim (jaeg...@kernel.org) --- > Thank you for the report. > > I think this is valid point that we need to fix. > I'm testing a RFC patch like this. Thanks. Shouldn't we revert 34c061ad85a2 ("f2fs: Avoid double lock for cp_rwsem during checkpoint") at the same time? > > --- a/fs/f2fs/node.c > +++ b/fs/f2fs/node.c > @@ -1926,8 +1926,12 @@ int f2fs_sync_node_pages(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, > goto continue_unlock; > } > > - /* flush inline_data, if it's async context. */ > - if (do_balance && is_inline_node(page)) { > + /* flush inline_data/inode, if it's async context. */ > + if (!do_balance) > + goto write_node; > + > + /* flush inline_data */ > + if (is_inline_node(page)) { > clear_inline_node(page); > unlock_page(page); > flush_inline_data(sbi, ino_of_node(page)); > @@ -1940,7 +1944,7 @@ int f2fs_sync_node_pages(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, > if (flush_dirty_inode(page)) > goto lock_node; > } > - > +write_node: > f2fs_wait_on_page_writeback(page, NODE, true, true); > > if (!clear_page_dirty_for_io(page)) > -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching the assignee of the bug. _______________________________________________ Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
