From: Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
To: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH] vfs: introduce UMOUNT_WAIT which waits for umount completion
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2017 03:06:07 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170915020607.GW5426@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170915001939.GA20096@jaegeuk-macbookpro.roam.corp.google.com>
On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 05:19:39PM -0700, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> Instead, I put more traces in the reboot procedure, and got a clue to suspect
> the below flow.
>
> delayed_fput() init
> - umount
> - mntput()
> - mntput_no_expire() - mntput_no_expire()
> - mnt_add_count(-1);
> - mnt_get_count() return;
> - return 0;
> - mnt_add_count(-1);
> - delayed_mntput_work
> - device_shutdown
> - ext4_put_super()
> - EIO
>
> Does this make any sense?
Which filesystem it is? With root I would've expected remount ro done
by sys_umount(); with anything else... How has it managed to avoid
-EBUSY? If it was umount -l (IOW, MNT_DETACH), I can see that happening,
but... How would flushing prevent the scenario when the same opened
file had remained open until after the umount(2) return?
In other words, where has that fput() come from and how had it managed
to get past the umount(2)?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-09-15 2:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-09-13 20:09 [PATCH] vfs: introduce UMOUNT_WAIT which waits for umount completion Jaegeuk Kim
2017-09-13 23:04 ` Al Viro
2017-09-13 23:31 ` Jaegeuk Kim
2017-09-13 23:44 ` Al Viro
2017-09-14 1:10 ` Jaegeuk Kim
2017-09-14 1:30 ` Al Viro
2017-09-14 18:37 ` Al Viro
2017-09-14 19:14 ` Jaegeuk Kim
2017-09-15 0:19 ` Jaegeuk Kim
2017-09-15 2:06 ` Al Viro [this message]
2017-09-15 3:45 ` Jaegeuk Kim
2017-09-15 4:21 ` Al Viro
2017-09-15 18:44 ` Jaegeuk Kim
2017-09-15 22:12 ` Theodore Ts'o
2017-09-15 23:29 ` Jaegeuk Kim
2017-09-15 23:43 ` Al Viro
2017-09-19 15:55 ` Jaegeuk Kim
2017-09-16 7:11 ` Amir Goldstein
2017-09-20 17:38 ` [PATCH v2] " Jaegeuk Kim
2017-09-20 18:38 ` Al Viro
2017-09-21 0:34 ` Jaegeuk Kim
2017-09-21 2:42 ` Al Viro
2017-09-21 5:02 ` Jaegeuk Kim
2017-09-21 14:48 ` Theodore Ts'o
2017-09-21 17:16 ` Jaegeuk Kim
2017-09-21 18:20 ` [PATCH v3] vfs: introduce UMOUNT_WAIT to wait for delayed_fput/mntput completion Jaegeuk Kim
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=20170915020607.GW5426@ZenIV.linux.org.uk \
--to=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
--cc=jaegeuk@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/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).