From: Aditya Kali <adityakali@google.com>
To: viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: anatol@google.com, Aditya Kali <adityakali@google.com>
Subject: [RFC] vfs: avoid sb->s_umount lock while changing bind-mount flags
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2013 10:42:30 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1379353350-11320-1-git-send-email-adityakali@google.com> (raw)
During remount of a bind mount (mount -o remount,bind,ro,... /mnt/mntpt),
we currently take down_write(&sb->s_umount). This causes the remount
operation to get blocked behind writes occuring on device (possibly
mounted somewhere else). We have observed that simply trying to change
the bind-mount from read-write to read-only can take several seconds
becuase writeback is in progress. Looking at the code it seems to me that
we need s_umount lock only around the do_remount_sb() call.
vfsmount_lock seems enough to protect the flag change on the mount.
So this patch fixes the locking so that changing of flags can happen
outside the down_write(&sb->s_umount).
I wanted to get comments if I am violating any assumption around this code.
Another thing that I was curious about was if we need the
{lock|unlock}_mount(path) around this code. Please advise.
Signed-off-by: Aditya Kali <adityakali@google.com>
---
fs/namespace.c | 7 ++++---
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/namespace.c b/fs/namespace.c
index da5c494..4b9c839 100644
--- a/fs/namespace.c
+++ b/fs/namespace.c
@@ -1838,20 +1838,21 @@ static int do_remount(struct path *path, int flags, int mnt_flags,
if (err)
return err;
- down_write(&sb->s_umount);
if (flags & MS_BIND)
err = change_mount_flags(path->mnt, flags);
else if (!capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN))
err = -EPERM;
- else
+ else {
+ down_write(&sb->s_umount);
err = do_remount_sb(sb, flags, data, 0);
+ up_write(&sb->s_umount);
+ }
if (!err) {
br_write_lock(&vfsmount_lock);
mnt_flags |= mnt->mnt.mnt_flags & MNT_PROPAGATION_MASK;
mnt->mnt.mnt_flags = mnt_flags;
br_write_unlock(&vfsmount_lock);
}
- up_write(&sb->s_umount);
if (!err) {
br_write_lock(&vfsmount_lock);
touch_mnt_namespace(mnt->mnt_ns);
--
1.8.4
next reply other threads:[~2013-09-16 17:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-09-16 17:42 Aditya Kali [this message]
2013-09-17 2:40 ` [RFC] vfs: avoid sb->s_umount lock while changing bind-mount flags Al Viro
2013-09-19 20:13 ` Aditya Kali
2013-09-30 17:54 ` Aditya Kali
2013-09-30 18:13 ` Aditya Kali
2013-09-30 20:03 ` Al Viro
2013-09-30 21:44 ` Aditya Kali
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=1379353350-11320-1-git-send-email-adityakali@google.com \
--to=adityakali@google.com \
--cc=anatol@google.com \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
/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).