From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>
To: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
Cc: Linux PM mailing list <linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>,
Nigel Cunningham <nigel@tuxonice.net>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
Christoph <cr2005@u-club.de>,
xfs@oss.sgi.com, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] PM / Freezer: Freeze filesystems while freezing processes (v2)
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2011 23:11:27 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <201108082311.28190.rjw@sisk.pl> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20110807001446.GI3162@dastard>
On Sunday, August 07, 2011, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 06, 2011 at 11:17:18PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl>
> >
> > Freeze all filesystems during the freezing of tasks by calling
> > freeze_bdev() for each of them and thaw them during the thawing
> > of tasks with the help of thaw_bdev().
> >
> > This is needed by hibernation, because some filesystems (e.g. XFS)
> > deadlock with the preallocation of memory used by it if the memory
> > pressure caused by it is too heavy.
> >
> > The additional benefit of this change is that, if something goes
> > wrong after filesystems have been frozen, they will stay in a
> > consistent state and journal replays won't be necessary (e.g. after
> > a failing suspend or resume). In particular, this should help to
> > solve a long-standing issue that in some cases during resume from
> > hibernation the boot loader causes the journal to be replied for the
> > filesystem containing the kernel image and initrd causing it to
> > become inconsistent with the information stored in the hibernation
> > image.
> >
> > This change is based on earlier work by Nigel Cunningham.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl>
> > ---
> >
> > OK, so nobody except for Pavel appears to have any comments, so I assume
> > that everyone except for Pavel is fine with the approach, interestingly enough.
> >
> > I've removed the MS_FROZEN Pavel complained about from freeze_filesystems()
> > and added comments explaining why lockdep_off/on() are used.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Rafael
> >
> > ---
> > fs/block_dev.c | 56 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > include/linux/fs.h | 6 +++++
> > kernel/power/process.c | 7 +++++-
> > 3 files changed, 68 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > Index: linux-2.6/include/linux/fs.h
> > ===================================================================
> > --- linux-2.6.orig/include/linux/fs.h
> > +++ linux-2.6/include/linux/fs.h
> > @@ -211,6 +211,7 @@ struct inodes_stat_t {
> > #define MS_KERNMOUNT (1<<22) /* this is a kern_mount call */
> > #define MS_I_VERSION (1<<23) /* Update inode I_version field */
> > #define MS_STRICTATIME (1<<24) /* Always perform atime updates */
> > +#define MS_FROZEN (1<<25) /* bdev has been frozen */
> > #define MS_NOSEC (1<<28)
> > #define MS_BORN (1<<29)
> > #define MS_ACTIVE (1<<30)
> > @@ -2047,6 +2048,8 @@ extern struct super_block *freeze_bdev(s
> > extern void emergency_thaw_all(void);
> > extern int thaw_bdev(struct block_device *bdev, struct super_block *sb);
> > extern int fsync_bdev(struct block_device *);
> > +extern void freeze_filesystems(void);
> > +extern void thaw_filesystems(void);
> > #else
> > static inline void bd_forget(struct inode *inode) {}
> > static inline int sync_blockdev(struct block_device *bdev) { return 0; }
> > @@ -2061,6 +2064,9 @@ static inline int thaw_bdev(struct block
> > {
> > return 0;
> > }
> > +
> > +static inline void freeze_filesystems(void) {}
> > +static inline void thaw_filesystems(void) {}
> > #endif
> > extern int sync_filesystem(struct super_block *);
> > extern const struct file_operations def_blk_fops;
> > Index: linux-2.6/fs/block_dev.c
> > ===================================================================
> > --- linux-2.6.orig/fs/block_dev.c
> > +++ linux-2.6/fs/block_dev.c
> > @@ -314,6 +314,62 @@ out:
> > }
> > EXPORT_SYMBOL(thaw_bdev);
> >
> > +/**
> > + * freeze_filesystems - Force all filesystems into a consistent state.
> > + */
> > +void freeze_filesystems(void)
> > +{
> > + struct super_block *sb;
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * This is necessary, because some filesystems (e.g. ext3) lock
> > + * mutexes in their .freeze_fs() callbacks and leave them locked for
> > + * their .unfreeze_fs() callbacks to unlock. This is done under
> > + * bdev->bd_fsfreeze_mutex, which is then released, but it makes
> > + * lockdep think something may be wrong when freeze_bdev() attempts
> > + * to acquire bdev->bd_fsfreeze_mutex for the next filesystem.
> > + */
> > + lockdep_off();
>
> I thought those problems were fixed. If they aren't, then they most
> certainly need to be because holding mutexes over system calls is a
> bug.
>
> Well, well:
>
> [252182.603134] ================================================
> [252182.604832] [ BUG: lock held when returning to user space! ]
> [252182.606086] ------------------------------------------------
> [252182.607400] xfs_io/4917 is leaving the kernel with locks still held!
> [252182.608905] 1 lock held by xfs_io/4917:
> [252182.609739] #0: (&journal->j_barrier){+.+...}, at: [<ffffffff812a2aaf>] journal_lock_updates+0xef/0x100
>
> <sigh>
>
> Looks like the problem was fixed for ext4, but not ext3. Please
> report this to the ext3/4 list and get it fixed, don't work around
> it here.
OK, but I guess I'll have to post a patch to fix this myself so that
anyone notices. :-)
> > + /*
> > + * Freeze in reverse order so filesystems depending on others are
> > + * frozen in the right order (eg. loopback on ext3).
> > + */
> > + list_for_each_entry_reverse(sb, &super_blocks, s_list) {
> > + if (!sb->s_root || !sb->s_bdev ||
> > + (sb->s_frozen == SB_FREEZE_TRANS) ||
> > + (sb->s_flags & MS_RDONLY))
> > + continue;
> > +
> > + freeze_bdev(sb->s_bdev);
> > + sb->s_flags |= MS_FROZEN;
> > + }
>
> AFAIK, that won't work for btrfs - you have to call freeze_super()
> directly for btrfs because it has a special relationship with
> sb->s_bdev. And besides, all freeze_bdev does is get an active
> reference on the superblock and call freeze_super().
OK, so do you mean I should call freeze_super() rather than freeze_bdev()?
> Also, that's traversing the list of superblock with locking and
> dereferencing the superblock without properly checking that the
> superblock is not being torn down. You should probably use
> iterate_supers (or at least copy the code), with a function that
> drops the s_umount read lock befor calling freeze_super() and then
> picks it back up afterwards.
Hmm, I'll try that, but I doubt I'll get it right first time. :-)
> > +
> > + lockdep_on();
> > +}
> > +
> > +/**
> > + * thaw_filesystems - Make all filesystems active again.
> > + */
> > +void thaw_filesystems(void)
> > +{
> > + struct super_block *sb;
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * This is necessary for the same reason as in freeze_filesystems()
> > + * above.
> > + */
> > + lockdep_off();
> > +
> > + list_for_each_entry(sb, &super_blocks, s_list)
> > + if (sb->s_flags & MS_FROZEN) {
> > + sb->s_flags &= ~MS_FROZEN;
> > + thaw_bdev(sb->s_bdev, sb);
> > + }
>
> And once again, iterate_supers() is what you want here.
OK
> And you should only call thaw_bdev() as it needs to do checks other
> than checking MS_FROZEN
Hmm, I'm not really sure what you mean?
> e.g. the above will unfreeze filesystems that
> were already frozen at the time a suspend occurs, and that could
> lead to corruption depending on why the filesystem was frozen...
>
> Also, you still need to check for a valid sb->s_bdev here, otherwise
> <splat>.
I see.
Thanks,
Rafael
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-08-08 21:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <4E1C70AD.1010101@u-club.de>
[not found] ` <20110803172922.GA2126@ucw.cz>
[not found] ` <201108041127.30944.rjw@sisk.pl>
2011-08-04 22:25 ` [RFC][PATCH] PM / Freezer: Freeze filesystems along with freezing processes (was: Re: PM / hibernate xfs lock up / xfs_reclaim_inodes_ag) Rafael J. Wysocki
2011-08-06 21:17 ` [PATCH] PM / Freezer: Freeze filesystems while freezing processes (v2) Rafael J. Wysocki
2011-08-07 0:14 ` Dave Chinner
2011-08-08 21:11 ` Rafael J. Wysocki [this message]
2011-08-14 0:16 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2011-09-24 22:56 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2011-09-25 5:32 ` Nigel Cunningham
2011-09-25 13:37 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2011-09-25 10:38 ` Christoph
2011-09-25 13:32 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2011-09-25 21:57 ` Christoph
2011-09-25 22:10 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2011-09-26 5:27 ` Christoph
2011-10-22 15:14 ` Christoph
2011-10-22 21:35 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2011-11-16 13:49 ` Ferenc Wagner
2011-11-16 21:50 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2011-09-25 13:40 ` [Update][PATCH] PM / Hibernate: Freeze kernel threads after preallocating memory Rafael J. Wysocki
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=201108082311.28190.rjw@sisk.pl \
--to=rjw@sisk.pl \
--cc=cr2005@u-club.de \
--cc=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org \
--cc=nigel@tuxonice.net \
--cc=pavel@ucw.cz \
--cc=tytso@mit.edu \
--cc=xfs@oss.sgi.com \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).