All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Srinivasa Ds <srinivasa@in.ibm.com>
To: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@sandeen.net>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
	dm-devel@redhat.com, linux-lvm@redhat.com,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, agk@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [RFC] Reverting "bd_mount_mutex" to "bd_mount_sem"
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 20:34:30 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <452BB67E.7000700@in.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4526C184.7070507@sandeen.net>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1086 bytes --]

Eric Sandeen wrote:
> Ingo Molnar wrote:
>   
>> * Srinivasa Ds <srinivasa@in.ibm.com> wrote:
>>
>>     
>>>   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.
>>>       
>> hm, to me this seems quite a fragile construct - even if the 
>> mutex-debugging warning is worked around by reverting to a semaphore.
>>
>> 	Ingo
>>     
>
> Ingo, what do you feel is fragile about this?  It seems like this is a
> reasonable way to go, except that maybe a down_trylock would be good if
> a 2nd process tries to freeze while it's already frozen...
>
> Thanks,
>
> -Eric
>   
Ingo, As per the discussion resending the patch with down_trylock.

Signed-off-by: Srinivasa DS <srinivasa@in.ibm.com>



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

---
 fs/block_dev.c     |    2 +-
 fs/buffer.c        |    6 ++++--
 fs/super.c         |    4 ++--
 include/linux/fs.h |    2 +-
 4 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

Index: linux-2.6.19-rc1/fs/block_dev.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.19-rc1.orig/fs/block_dev.c
+++ linux-2.6.19-rc1/fs/block_dev.c
@@ -263,7 +263,7 @@ 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
Index: linux-2.6.19-rc1/fs/buffer.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.19-rc1.orig/fs/buffer.c
+++ linux-2.6.19-rc1/fs/buffer.c
@@ -188,7 +188,9 @@ struct super_block *freeze_bdev(struct b
 {
 	struct super_block *sb;
 
-	mutex_lock(&bdev->bd_mount_mutex);
+	if (down_trylock(&bdev->bd_mount_sem))
+		return -EBUSY;
+
 	sb = get_super(bdev);
 	if (sb && !(sb->s_flags & MS_RDONLY)) {
 		sb->s_frozen = SB_FREEZE_WRITE;
@@ -230,7 +232,7 @@ 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);
 
Index: linux-2.6.19-rc1/fs/super.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.19-rc1.orig/fs/super.c
+++ linux-2.6.19-rc1/fs/super.c
@@ -735,9 +735,9 @@ 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;
 
Index: linux-2.6.19-rc1/include/linux/fs.h
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.19-rc1.orig/include/linux/fs.h
+++ linux-2.6.19-rc1/include/linux/fs.h
@@ -456,7 +456,7 @@ 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: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@sandeen.net>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
	dm-devel@redhat.com, agk@redhat.com, linux-lvm@redhat.com
Subject: [linux-lvm] Re: [RFC] Reverting "bd_mount_mutex" to "bd_mount_sem"
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 20:34:30 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <452BB67E.7000700@in.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4526C184.7070507@sandeen.net>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1086 bytes --]

Eric Sandeen wrote:
> Ingo Molnar wrote:
>   
>> * Srinivasa Ds <srinivasa@in.ibm.com> wrote:
>>
>>     
>>>   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.
>>>       
>> hm, to me this seems quite a fragile construct - even if the 
>> mutex-debugging warning is worked around by reverting to a semaphore.
>>
>> 	Ingo
>>     
>
> Ingo, what do you feel is fragile about this?  It seems like this is a
> reasonable way to go, except that maybe a down_trylock would be good if
> a 2nd process tries to freeze while it's already frozen...
>
> Thanks,
>
> -Eric
>   
Ingo, As per the discussion resending the patch with down_trylock.

Signed-off-by: Srinivasa DS <srinivasa@in.ibm.com>



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

---
 fs/block_dev.c     |    2 +-
 fs/buffer.c        |    6 ++++--
 fs/super.c         |    4 ++--
 include/linux/fs.h |    2 +-
 4 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

Index: linux-2.6.19-rc1/fs/block_dev.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.19-rc1.orig/fs/block_dev.c
+++ linux-2.6.19-rc1/fs/block_dev.c
@@ -263,7 +263,7 @@ 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
Index: linux-2.6.19-rc1/fs/buffer.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.19-rc1.orig/fs/buffer.c
+++ linux-2.6.19-rc1/fs/buffer.c
@@ -188,7 +188,9 @@ struct super_block *freeze_bdev(struct b
 {
 	struct super_block *sb;
 
-	mutex_lock(&bdev->bd_mount_mutex);
+	if (down_trylock(&bdev->bd_mount_sem))
+		return -EBUSY;
+
 	sb = get_super(bdev);
 	if (sb && !(sb->s_flags & MS_RDONLY)) {
 		sb->s_frozen = SB_FREEZE_WRITE;
@@ -230,7 +232,7 @@ 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);
 
Index: linux-2.6.19-rc1/fs/super.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.19-rc1.orig/fs/super.c
+++ linux-2.6.19-rc1/fs/super.c
@@ -735,9 +735,9 @@ 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;
 
Index: linux-2.6.19-rc1/include/linux/fs.h
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.19-rc1.orig/include/linux/fs.h
+++ linux-2.6.19-rc1/include/linux/fs.h
@@ -456,7 +456,7 @@ 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:[~2006-10-10 15:04 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2006-09-27 13:13 [RFC] Reverting "bd_mount_mutex" to "bd_mount_sem" Srinivasa Ds
2006-09-27 13:13 ` 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 [this message]
2006-10-10 15:04       ` 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=452BB67E.7000700@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 \
    --cc=sandeen@sandeen.net \
    /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.