| Message ID | 1366215556-8586-1-git-send-email-jbacik@fusionio.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 12:19:16PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote: > The locking order for stuff is > > __sb_start_write > ordered_mutex > > but with sync() we don't do __sb_start_write for some strange reason, which > means that our iput in wait_ordered_extents could start a transaction which does > the __sb_start_write while we're holding the ordered_mutex. Fix this by using > delayed iput in sync. Thanks, No lockdep warning anymore. david -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/super.c b/fs/btrfs/super.c index bb60fe5..2a0bece 100644 --- a/fs/btrfs/super.c +++ b/fs/btrfs/super.c @@ -866,7 +866,7 @@ int btrfs_sync_fs(struct super_block *sb, int wait) return 0; } - btrfs_wait_ordered_extents(root, 0); + btrfs_wait_ordered_extents(root, 1); trans = btrfs_attach_transaction_barrier(root); if (IS_ERR(trans)) {
The locking order for stuff is __sb_start_write ordered_mutex but with sync() we don't do __sb_start_write for some strange reason, which means that our iput in wait_ordered_extents could start a transaction which does the __sb_start_write while we're holding the ordered_mutex. Fix this by using delayed iput in sync. Thanks, Reported-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <jbacik@fusionio.com> --- fs/btrfs/super.c | 2 +- 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)