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;
next prev parent 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.