All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Srinivasa Ds <srinivasa@in.ibm.com>
To: dm-devel@redhat.com, linux-lvm@redhat.com,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@elte.hu, agk@redhat.com
Subject: [RFC] Reverting "bd_mount_mutex" to "bd_mount_sem"
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 18:43:03 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <451A78DF.1060901@in.ibm.com> (raw)

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2167 bytes --]

Hi all
  When I was executing "dmsetup resume <device-name>" command,I got the 
error shown below. Which basically tells that, "bd_mount_mutex"  in 
thaw_bdev() is not locked by "dmsetup resume" command and hence it is 
not allowing it to unlock also.
=========================================================
Badness in debug_mutex_unlock at kernel/mutex-debug.c:80

Call Trace:
[C0000000634DB260] [C000000000010948] .show_stack+0x68/0x1b0 (unreliable)
[C0000000634DB300] [C0000000003376C4] .program_check_exception+0x1cc/0x5b0
[C0000000634DB3D0] [C0000000000047EC] program_check_common+0xec/0x100
--- Exception: 700 at .debug_mutex_unlock+0x3c/0xc4
    LR = .debug_mutex_unlock+0x30/0xc4
[C0000000634DB6C0] [C0000000634DB750] 0xc0000000634db750 (unreliable)
[C0000000634DB740] [C000000000335950] .__mutex_unlock_slowpath+0xd8/0x144
[C0000000634DB7E0] [C0000000000E2370] .thaw_bdev+0x9c/0xb8
[C0000000634DB870] [D000000000480830] .unlock_fs+0x34/0x70 [dm_mod]
[C0000000634DB900] [D000000000481720] .dm_resume+0x110/0x1ac [dm_mod]
[C0000000634DB9A0] [D000000000485C54] .dev_suspend+0x1b0/0x204 [dm_mod]
[C0000000634DBA40] [D000000000486728] .ctl_ioctl+0x29c/0x318 [dm_mod]
[C0000000634DBC30] [C0000000000F8310] .do_ioctl+0xbc/0xf0
[C0000000634DBCD0] [C0000000000F879C] .vfs_ioctl+0x458/0x498
[C0000000634DBD80] [C0000000000F8874] .sys_ioctl+0x98/0xe0
[C0000000634DBE30] [C00000000000871C] syscall_exit+0x0/0x40
======================================================================

   On debugging I found out that,"dmsetup suspend <device name>" calls 
"freeze_bdev()",which locks "bd_mount_mutex" to make sure that no new 
mounts happen on bdev until thaw_bdev() is called.
   This "thaw_bdev()" is getting called when we resume the device through
"dmsetup resume <device-name>".
   Hence we have 2 processes,one of which locks "bd_mount_mutex"(dmsetup
suspend) and Another(dmsetup resume) unlocks it.

   Since this is not allowed in mutex,I reverted back to 
bd_mount_sem(semaphore),It worked for me.

  So  need your comments for changing "bd_mount_mutex" to "bd_mount_sem".
  
  This is the patch,which I have used.

Thanks
 Srinivasa Ds
 LTC-IBM
 Bangalore



[-- Attachment #2: mutex_to_sem.fix --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 2388 bytes --]

diff -Naurp linux-2.6.18-rc6-orig/fs/block_dev.c linux-2.6.18-rc6-mod/fs/block_dev.c
--- linux-2.6.18-rc6-orig/fs/block_dev.c	2006-09-27 04:47:25.000000000 -0700
+++ linux-2.6.18-rc6-mod/fs/block_dev.c	2006-09-27 04:53:29.000000000 -0700
@@ -261,7 +261,7 @@ static void init_once(void * foo, kmem_c
 	{
 		memset(bdev, 0, sizeof(*bdev));
 		mutex_init(&bdev->bd_mutex);
-		mutex_init(&bdev->bd_mount_mutex);
+		sema_init(&bdev->bd_mount_sem, 1);
 		INIT_LIST_HEAD(&bdev->bd_inodes);
 		INIT_LIST_HEAD(&bdev->bd_list);
 #ifdef CONFIG_SYSFS
diff -Naurp linux-2.6.18-rc6-orig/fs/buffer.c linux-2.6.18-rc6-mod/fs/buffer.c
--- linux-2.6.18-rc6-orig/fs/buffer.c	2006-09-27 04:46:14.000000000 -0700
+++ linux-2.6.18-rc6-mod/fs/buffer.c	2006-09-27 04:49:55.000000000 -0700
@@ -213,7 +213,7 @@ struct super_block *freeze_bdev(struct b
 {
 	struct super_block *sb;
 
-	mutex_lock(&bdev->bd_mount_mutex);
+	down(&bdev->bd_mount_sem);
 	sb = get_super(bdev);
 	if (sb && !(sb->s_flags & MS_RDONLY)) {
 		sb->s_frozen = SB_FREEZE_WRITE;
@@ -255,7 +255,7 @@ void thaw_bdev(struct block_device *bdev
 		drop_super(sb);
 	}
 
-	mutex_unlock(&bdev->bd_mount_mutex);
+	up(&bdev->bd_mount_sem);
 }
 EXPORT_SYMBOL(thaw_bdev);
 
diff -Naurp linux-2.6.18-rc6-orig/fs/super.c linux-2.6.18-rc6-mod/fs/super.c
--- linux-2.6.18-rc6-orig/fs/super.c	2006-09-27 04:46:51.000000000 -0700
+++ linux-2.6.18-rc6-mod/fs/super.c	2006-09-27 04:50:56.000000000 -0700
@@ -700,9 +700,9 @@ int get_sb_bdev(struct file_system_type 
 	 * will protect the lockfs code from trying to start a snapshot
 	 * while we are mounting
 	 */
-	mutex_lock(&bdev->bd_mount_mutex);
+	down(&bdev->bd_mount_sem);
 	s = sget(fs_type, test_bdev_super, set_bdev_super, bdev);
-	mutex_unlock(&bdev->bd_mount_mutex);
+	up(&bdev->bd_mount_sem);
 	if (IS_ERR(s))
 		goto error_s;
 
diff -Naurp linux-2.6.18-rc6-orig/include/linux/fs.h linux-2.6.18-rc6-mod/include/linux/fs.h
--- linux-2.6.18-rc6-orig/include/linux/fs.h	2006-09-27 04:45:31.000000000 -0700
+++ linux-2.6.18-rc6-mod/include/linux/fs.h	2006-09-27 04:52:30.000000000 -0700
@@ -414,7 +414,7 @@ struct block_device {
 	struct inode *		bd_inode;	/* will die */
 	int			bd_openers;
 	struct mutex		bd_mutex;	/* open/close mutex */
-	struct mutex		bd_mount_mutex;	/* mount mutex */
+	struct semaphore        bd_mount_sem;
 	struct list_head	bd_inodes;
 	void *			bd_holder;
 	int			bd_holders;

[-- Attachment #3: Type: text/plain, Size: 0 bytes --]



WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Srinivasa Ds <srinivasa@in.ibm.com>
To: dm-devel@redhat.com, linux-lvm@redhat.com,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@elte.hu, agk@redhat.com
Subject: [linux-lvm] [RFC] Reverting "bd_mount_mutex" to "bd_mount_sem"
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 18:43:03 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <451A78DF.1060901@in.ibm.com> (raw)

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2167 bytes --]

Hi all
  When I was executing "dmsetup resume <device-name>" command,I got the 
error shown below. Which basically tells that, "bd_mount_mutex"  in 
thaw_bdev() is not locked by "dmsetup resume" command and hence it is 
not allowing it to unlock also.
=========================================================
Badness in debug_mutex_unlock at kernel/mutex-debug.c:80

Call Trace:
[C0000000634DB260] [C000000000010948] .show_stack+0x68/0x1b0 (unreliable)
[C0000000634DB300] [C0000000003376C4] .program_check_exception+0x1cc/0x5b0
[C0000000634DB3D0] [C0000000000047EC] program_check_common+0xec/0x100
--- Exception: 700 at .debug_mutex_unlock+0x3c/0xc4
    LR = .debug_mutex_unlock+0x30/0xc4
[C0000000634DB6C0] [C0000000634DB750] 0xc0000000634db750 (unreliable)
[C0000000634DB740] [C000000000335950] .__mutex_unlock_slowpath+0xd8/0x144
[C0000000634DB7E0] [C0000000000E2370] .thaw_bdev+0x9c/0xb8
[C0000000634DB870] [D000000000480830] .unlock_fs+0x34/0x70 [dm_mod]
[C0000000634DB900] [D000000000481720] .dm_resume+0x110/0x1ac [dm_mod]
[C0000000634DB9A0] [D000000000485C54] .dev_suspend+0x1b0/0x204 [dm_mod]
[C0000000634DBA40] [D000000000486728] .ctl_ioctl+0x29c/0x318 [dm_mod]
[C0000000634DBC30] [C0000000000F8310] .do_ioctl+0xbc/0xf0
[C0000000634DBCD0] [C0000000000F879C] .vfs_ioctl+0x458/0x498
[C0000000634DBD80] [C0000000000F8874] .sys_ioctl+0x98/0xe0
[C0000000634DBE30] [C00000000000871C] syscall_exit+0x0/0x40
======================================================================

   On debugging I found out that,"dmsetup suspend <device name>" calls 
"freeze_bdev()",which locks "bd_mount_mutex" to make sure that no new 
mounts happen on bdev until thaw_bdev() is called.
   This "thaw_bdev()" is getting called when we resume the device through
"dmsetup resume <device-name>".
   Hence we have 2 processes,one of which locks "bd_mount_mutex"(dmsetup
suspend) and Another(dmsetup resume) unlocks it.

   Since this is not allowed in mutex,I reverted back to 
bd_mount_sem(semaphore),It worked for me.

  So  need your comments for changing "bd_mount_mutex" to "bd_mount_sem".
  
  This is the patch,which I have used.

Thanks
 Srinivasa Ds
 LTC-IBM
 Bangalore



[-- Attachment #2: mutex_to_sem.fix --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 2388 bytes --]

diff -Naurp linux-2.6.18-rc6-orig/fs/block_dev.c linux-2.6.18-rc6-mod/fs/block_dev.c
--- linux-2.6.18-rc6-orig/fs/block_dev.c	2006-09-27 04:47:25.000000000 -0700
+++ linux-2.6.18-rc6-mod/fs/block_dev.c	2006-09-27 04:53:29.000000000 -0700
@@ -261,7 +261,7 @@ static void init_once(void * foo, kmem_c
 	{
 		memset(bdev, 0, sizeof(*bdev));
 		mutex_init(&bdev->bd_mutex);
-		mutex_init(&bdev->bd_mount_mutex);
+		sema_init(&bdev->bd_mount_sem, 1);
 		INIT_LIST_HEAD(&bdev->bd_inodes);
 		INIT_LIST_HEAD(&bdev->bd_list);
 #ifdef CONFIG_SYSFS
diff -Naurp linux-2.6.18-rc6-orig/fs/buffer.c linux-2.6.18-rc6-mod/fs/buffer.c
--- linux-2.6.18-rc6-orig/fs/buffer.c	2006-09-27 04:46:14.000000000 -0700
+++ linux-2.6.18-rc6-mod/fs/buffer.c	2006-09-27 04:49:55.000000000 -0700
@@ -213,7 +213,7 @@ struct super_block *freeze_bdev(struct b
 {
 	struct super_block *sb;
 
-	mutex_lock(&bdev->bd_mount_mutex);
+	down(&bdev->bd_mount_sem);
 	sb = get_super(bdev);
 	if (sb && !(sb->s_flags & MS_RDONLY)) {
 		sb->s_frozen = SB_FREEZE_WRITE;
@@ -255,7 +255,7 @@ void thaw_bdev(struct block_device *bdev
 		drop_super(sb);
 	}
 
-	mutex_unlock(&bdev->bd_mount_mutex);
+	up(&bdev->bd_mount_sem);
 }
 EXPORT_SYMBOL(thaw_bdev);
 
diff -Naurp linux-2.6.18-rc6-orig/fs/super.c linux-2.6.18-rc6-mod/fs/super.c
--- linux-2.6.18-rc6-orig/fs/super.c	2006-09-27 04:46:51.000000000 -0700
+++ linux-2.6.18-rc6-mod/fs/super.c	2006-09-27 04:50:56.000000000 -0700
@@ -700,9 +700,9 @@ int get_sb_bdev(struct file_system_type 
 	 * will protect the lockfs code from trying to start a snapshot
 	 * while we are mounting
 	 */
-	mutex_lock(&bdev->bd_mount_mutex);
+	down(&bdev->bd_mount_sem);
 	s = sget(fs_type, test_bdev_super, set_bdev_super, bdev);
-	mutex_unlock(&bdev->bd_mount_mutex);
+	up(&bdev->bd_mount_sem);
 	if (IS_ERR(s))
 		goto error_s;
 
diff -Naurp linux-2.6.18-rc6-orig/include/linux/fs.h linux-2.6.18-rc6-mod/include/linux/fs.h
--- linux-2.6.18-rc6-orig/include/linux/fs.h	2006-09-27 04:45:31.000000000 -0700
+++ linux-2.6.18-rc6-mod/include/linux/fs.h	2006-09-27 04:52:30.000000000 -0700
@@ -414,7 +414,7 @@ struct block_device {
 	struct inode *		bd_inode;	/* will die */
 	int			bd_openers;
 	struct mutex		bd_mutex;	/* open/close mutex */
-	struct mutex		bd_mount_mutex;	/* mount mutex */
+	struct semaphore        bd_mount_sem;
 	struct list_head	bd_inodes;
 	void *			bd_holder;
 	int			bd_holders;

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Srinivasa Ds <srinivasa@in.ibm.com>
To: dm-devel@redhat.com, linux-lvm@redhat.com,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@elte.hu, agk@redhat.com
Subject: [RFC] Reverting "bd_mount_mutex" to "bd_mount_sem"
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 18:43:03 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <451A78DF.1060901@in.ibm.com> (raw)

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2167 bytes --]

Hi all
  When I was executing "dmsetup resume <device-name>" command,I got the 
error shown below. Which basically tells that, "bd_mount_mutex"  in 
thaw_bdev() is not locked by "dmsetup resume" command and hence it is 
not allowing it to unlock also.
=========================================================
Badness in debug_mutex_unlock at kernel/mutex-debug.c:80

Call Trace:
[C0000000634DB260] [C000000000010948] .show_stack+0x68/0x1b0 (unreliable)
[C0000000634DB300] [C0000000003376C4] .program_check_exception+0x1cc/0x5b0
[C0000000634DB3D0] [C0000000000047EC] program_check_common+0xec/0x100
--- Exception: 700 at .debug_mutex_unlock+0x3c/0xc4
    LR = .debug_mutex_unlock+0x30/0xc4
[C0000000634DB6C0] [C0000000634DB750] 0xc0000000634db750 (unreliable)
[C0000000634DB740] [C000000000335950] .__mutex_unlock_slowpath+0xd8/0x144
[C0000000634DB7E0] [C0000000000E2370] .thaw_bdev+0x9c/0xb8
[C0000000634DB870] [D000000000480830] .unlock_fs+0x34/0x70 [dm_mod]
[C0000000634DB900] [D000000000481720] .dm_resume+0x110/0x1ac [dm_mod]
[C0000000634DB9A0] [D000000000485C54] .dev_suspend+0x1b0/0x204 [dm_mod]
[C0000000634DBA40] [D000000000486728] .ctl_ioctl+0x29c/0x318 [dm_mod]
[C0000000634DBC30] [C0000000000F8310] .do_ioctl+0xbc/0xf0
[C0000000634DBCD0] [C0000000000F879C] .vfs_ioctl+0x458/0x498
[C0000000634DBD80] [C0000000000F8874] .sys_ioctl+0x98/0xe0
[C0000000634DBE30] [C00000000000871C] syscall_exit+0x0/0x40
======================================================================

   On debugging I found out that,"dmsetup suspend <device name>" calls 
"freeze_bdev()",which locks "bd_mount_mutex" to make sure that no new 
mounts happen on bdev until thaw_bdev() is called.
   This "thaw_bdev()" is getting called when we resume the device through
"dmsetup resume <device-name>".
   Hence we have 2 processes,one of which locks "bd_mount_mutex"(dmsetup
suspend) and Another(dmsetup resume) unlocks it.

   Since this is not allowed in mutex,I reverted back to 
bd_mount_sem(semaphore),It worked for me.

  So  need your comments for changing "bd_mount_mutex" to "bd_mount_sem".
  
  This is the patch,which I have used.

Thanks
 Srinivasa Ds
 LTC-IBM
 Bangalore



[-- Attachment #2: mutex_to_sem.fix --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 2388 bytes --]

diff -Naurp linux-2.6.18-rc6-orig/fs/block_dev.c linux-2.6.18-rc6-mod/fs/block_dev.c
--- linux-2.6.18-rc6-orig/fs/block_dev.c	2006-09-27 04:47:25.000000000 -0700
+++ linux-2.6.18-rc6-mod/fs/block_dev.c	2006-09-27 04:53:29.000000000 -0700
@@ -261,7 +261,7 @@ static void init_once(void * foo, kmem_c
 	{
 		memset(bdev, 0, sizeof(*bdev));
 		mutex_init(&bdev->bd_mutex);
-		mutex_init(&bdev->bd_mount_mutex);
+		sema_init(&bdev->bd_mount_sem, 1);
 		INIT_LIST_HEAD(&bdev->bd_inodes);
 		INIT_LIST_HEAD(&bdev->bd_list);
 #ifdef CONFIG_SYSFS
diff -Naurp linux-2.6.18-rc6-orig/fs/buffer.c linux-2.6.18-rc6-mod/fs/buffer.c
--- linux-2.6.18-rc6-orig/fs/buffer.c	2006-09-27 04:46:14.000000000 -0700
+++ linux-2.6.18-rc6-mod/fs/buffer.c	2006-09-27 04:49:55.000000000 -0700
@@ -213,7 +213,7 @@ struct super_block *freeze_bdev(struct b
 {
 	struct super_block *sb;
 
-	mutex_lock(&bdev->bd_mount_mutex);
+	down(&bdev->bd_mount_sem);
 	sb = get_super(bdev);
 	if (sb && !(sb->s_flags & MS_RDONLY)) {
 		sb->s_frozen = SB_FREEZE_WRITE;
@@ -255,7 +255,7 @@ void thaw_bdev(struct block_device *bdev
 		drop_super(sb);
 	}
 
-	mutex_unlock(&bdev->bd_mount_mutex);
+	up(&bdev->bd_mount_sem);
 }
 EXPORT_SYMBOL(thaw_bdev);
 
diff -Naurp linux-2.6.18-rc6-orig/fs/super.c linux-2.6.18-rc6-mod/fs/super.c
--- linux-2.6.18-rc6-orig/fs/super.c	2006-09-27 04:46:51.000000000 -0700
+++ linux-2.6.18-rc6-mod/fs/super.c	2006-09-27 04:50:56.000000000 -0700
@@ -700,9 +700,9 @@ int get_sb_bdev(struct file_system_type 
 	 * will protect the lockfs code from trying to start a snapshot
 	 * while we are mounting
 	 */
-	mutex_lock(&bdev->bd_mount_mutex);
+	down(&bdev->bd_mount_sem);
 	s = sget(fs_type, test_bdev_super, set_bdev_super, bdev);
-	mutex_unlock(&bdev->bd_mount_mutex);
+	up(&bdev->bd_mount_sem);
 	if (IS_ERR(s))
 		goto error_s;
 
diff -Naurp linux-2.6.18-rc6-orig/include/linux/fs.h linux-2.6.18-rc6-mod/include/linux/fs.h
--- linux-2.6.18-rc6-orig/include/linux/fs.h	2006-09-27 04:45:31.000000000 -0700
+++ linux-2.6.18-rc6-mod/include/linux/fs.h	2006-09-27 04:52:30.000000000 -0700
@@ -414,7 +414,7 @@ struct block_device {
 	struct inode *		bd_inode;	/* will die */
 	int			bd_openers;
 	struct mutex		bd_mutex;	/* open/close mutex */
-	struct mutex		bd_mount_mutex;	/* mount mutex */
+	struct semaphore        bd_mount_sem;
 	struct list_head	bd_inodes;
 	void *			bd_holder;
 	int			bd_holders;

             reply	other threads:[~2006-09-27 13:13 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2006-09-27 13:13 Srinivasa Ds [this message]
2006-09-27 13:13 ` [RFC] Reverting "bd_mount_mutex" to "bd_mount_sem" Srinivasa Ds
2006-09-27 13:13 ` [linux-lvm] " Srinivasa Ds
2006-09-27 13:57 ` Ingo Molnar
2006-09-27 13:57   ` [linux-lvm] " Ingo Molnar
2006-10-06 20:50   ` Eric Sandeen
2006-10-06 20:50     ` [linux-lvm] " Eric Sandeen
2006-10-10 15:04     ` Srinivasa Ds
2006-10-10 15:04       ` [linux-lvm] " Srinivasa Ds
2006-10-10 15:19       ` Arjan van de Ven
2006-10-10 15:19         ` Arjan van de Ven
2006-10-10 15:19         ` [linux-lvm] " Arjan van de Ven
2006-10-23  8:39         ` Roger Lucas

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=451A78DF.1060901@in.ibm.com \
    --to=srinivasa@in.ibm.com \
    --cc=agk@redhat.com \
    --cc=dm-devel@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-lvm@redhat.com \
    --cc=mingo@elte.hu \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.