* [linux-lvm] [PATCH] fix oops when snapshots get full
@ 2001-10-11 17:49 Chris Mason
2001-10-11 19:57 ` Andreas Dilger
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Chris Mason @ 2001-10-11 17:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-lvm
Hi guys,
Here's a repost of the patch that fixes oopsen when snapshots
get full. Please comment and/or include ;-)
Against 1.0.1rc4, the bug should affect all kernel versions.
-chris
--- 0.21/drivers/md/lvm.c Sun, 07 Oct 2001 22:15:54 -0400
+++ 0.21(w)/drivers/md/lvm.c Mon, 08 Oct 2001 15:54:42 -0400
@@ -1142,7 +1142,8 @@
/* we must redo lvm_snapshot_remap_block in order to avoid a
race condition in the gap where no lock was held */
- if (!lvm_snapshot_remap_block(&rdev, &rsector, pe_start, lv) &&
+ if (lv->lv_block_exception &&
+ !lvm_snapshot_remap_block(&rdev, &rsector, pe_start, lv) &&
!lvm_snapshot_COW(rdev, rsector, pe_start, rsector, vg, lv))
lvm_write_COW_table_block(vg, lv);
@@ -1151,11 +1152,12 @@
static inline void _remap_snapshot(kdev_t rdev, ulong rsector,
ulong pe_start, lv_t *lv, vg_t *vg) {
- int r;
+ int r = 0;
/* check to see if this chunk is already in the snapshot */
down_read(&lv->lv_lock);
- r = lvm_snapshot_remap_block(&rdev, &rsector, pe_start, lv);
+ if (lv->lv_block_exception)
+ r = lvm_snapshot_remap_block(&rdev, &rsector, pe_start, lv);
up_read(&lv->lv_lock);
if (!r)
Index: 0.21/drivers/md/lvm-snap.c
--- 0.21/drivers/md/lvm-snap.c Sat, 06 Oct 2001 00:07:22 -0400 root (linux/i/c/38_lvm-snap.c 1.1.2.1.2.1 644)
+++ 0.21(w)/drivers/md/lvm-snap.c Mon, 08 Oct 2001 15:13:10 -0400 root (linux/i/c/38_lvm-snap.c 1.1.2.1.2.1 644)
@@ -140,6 +140,8 @@
unsigned long mask = lv->lv_snapshot_hash_mask;
int chunk_size = lv->lv_chunk_size;
+ if (!hash_table)
+ BUG() ;
hash_table = &hash_table[hashfn(org_dev, org_start, mask, chunk_size)];
list_add(&exception->hash, hash_table);
}
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread* Re: [linux-lvm] [PATCH] fix oops when snapshots get full 2001-10-11 17:49 [linux-lvm] [PATCH] fix oops when snapshots get full Chris Mason @ 2001-10-11 19:57 ` Andreas Dilger 2001-10-11 21:03 ` Chris Mason 2001-10-12 7:53 ` Joe Thornber 0 siblings, 2 replies; 5+ messages in thread From: Andreas Dilger @ 2001-10-11 19:57 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-lvm On Oct 11, 2001 13:49 -0400, Chris Mason wrote: > --- 0.21/drivers/md/lvm.c Sun, 07 Oct 2001 22:15:54 -0400 > +++ 0.21(w)/drivers/md/lvm.c Mon, 08 Oct 2001 15:54:42 -0400 > @@ -1142,7 +1142,8 @@ > > /* we must redo lvm_snapshot_remap_block in order to avoid a > race condition in the gap where no lock was held */ > - if (!lvm_snapshot_remap_block(&rdev, &rsector, pe_start, lv) && > + if (lv->lv_block_exception && > + !lvm_snapshot_remap_block(&rdev, &rsector, pe_start, lv) && > !lvm_snapshot_COW(rdev, rsector, pe_start, rsector, vg, lv)) > lvm_write_COW_table_block(vg, lv); > > @@ -1151,11 +1152,12 @@ > > static inline void _remap_snapshot(kdev_t rdev, ulong rsector, > ulong pe_start, lv_t *lv, vg_t *vg) { > - int r; > + int r = 0; > > /* check to see if this chunk is already in the snapshot */ > down_read(&lv->lv_lock); > - r = lvm_snapshot_remap_block(&rdev, &rsector, pe_start, lv); > + if (lv->lv_block_exception) > + r = lvm_snapshot_remap_block(&rdev, &rsector, pe_start, lv); > up_read(&lv->lv_lock); I was looking at this, and thought the following: 1) Shouldn't we just initialize r=1 in _remap_snapshot(), and then if lv->lv_block_exception is NULL we will not enter __remap_snapshot() at all? That would remove the need to get the write semaphore for no reason. 2) Initially, I thought we could just "optimize" the checking of lv->lv_block_exception, but I supposed there are race conditions in dropping the read lock and getting the write lock, so I guess we still need to check lv->lv_block_exception in __remap_snapshot() also? 3) The alternative would be to check lv->lv_block_exception inside lvm_snapshot_remap_block() instead of in the callers (returning "1" if it is NULL, and we don't want to do remap). This would avoid any problems in the future if someone else calls lvm_snapshot_remap_block() without checking lv_block_exception first. Untested patch below which should be equivalent to your previous patch. Cheers, Andreas ========================================================================= diff -u -u -r1.7 lvm-snap.c --- kernel/lvm-snap.c 2001/09/27 08:34:43 1.7 +++ kernel/lvm-snap.c 2001/10/11 19:55:02 @@ -157,6 +157,12 @@ list_add(&exception->hash, hash_table); } +/* + * Determine if we already have a snapshot chunk for this block. + * Return: 1 if it the chunk already exists + * 0 if we need to COW this block and allocate a new chunk + * -1 if the snapshot was disabled because it ran out of space + */ int lvm_snapshot_remap_block(kdev_t * org_dev, unsigned long * org_sector, unsigned long pe_start, lv_t * lv) { @@ -166,6 +172,9 @@ int chunk_size = lv->lv_chunk_size; lv_block_exception_t * exception; + if (!lv->lv_block_exception) + return -1; + pe_off = pe_start % chunk_size; pe_adjustment = (*org_sector-pe_off) % chunk_size; __org_start = *org_sector - pe_adjustment; diff -u -u -r1.46 lvm.c --- kernel/lvm.c 2001/10/02 21:14:41 1.46 +++ kernel/lvm.c 2001/10/11 19:55:03 @@ -1365,10 +1359,8 @@ goto out; if (lv->lv_access & LV_SNAPSHOT) { /* remap snapshot */ - if (lv->lv_block_exception) - lvm_snapshot_remap_block(&rdev_map, &rsector_map, - pe_start, lv); - else + if (lvm_snapshot_remap_block(&rdev_map, &rsector_map, + pe_start, lv) < 0) goto bad; } else if (rw == WRITE || rw == WRITEA) { /* snapshot origin */ -- Andreas Dilger \ "If a man ate a pound of pasta and a pound of antipasto, \ would they cancel out, leaving him still hungry?" http://www-mddsp.enel.ucalgary.ca/People/adilger/ -- Dogbert ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [linux-lvm] [PATCH] fix oops when snapshots get full 2001-10-11 19:57 ` Andreas Dilger @ 2001-10-11 21:03 ` Chris Mason 2001-10-11 21:37 ` Andreas Dilger 2001-10-12 7:53 ` Joe Thornber 1 sibling, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread From: Chris Mason @ 2001-10-11 21:03 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-lvm On Thursday, October 11, 2001 01:57:15 PM -0600 Andreas Dilger <adilger@turbolabs.com> wrote: > I was looking at this, and thought the following: > > 1) Shouldn't we just initialize r=1 in _remap_snapshot(), and then if > lv->lv_block_exception is NULL we will not enter __remap_snapshot() > at all? That would remove the need to get the write semaphore for > no reason. Good point. > 2) Initially, I thought we could just "optimize" the checking of > lv->lv_block_exception, but I supposed there are race conditions > in dropping the read lock and getting the write lock, so I guess > we still need to check lv->lv_block_exception in __remap_snapshot() > also? Yes, I think we do. > 3) The alternative would be to check lv->lv_block_exception inside > lvm_snapshot_remap_block() instead of in the callers (returning "1" > if it is NULL, and we don't want to do remap). This would avoid any > problems in the future if someone else calls lvm_snapshot_remap_block() > without checking lv_block_exception first. Untested patch below which > should be equivalent to your previous patch. The only thing I don't like about this is that it makes it hides the fact that lvm_snapshot_COW and a few other calls depend on block_exception being valid. The code certainly looks right though, just a matter of style. thanks, Chris ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [linux-lvm] [PATCH] fix oops when snapshots get full 2001-10-11 21:03 ` Chris Mason @ 2001-10-11 21:37 ` Andreas Dilger 0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread From: Andreas Dilger @ 2001-10-11 21:37 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-lvm On Oct 11, 2001 17:03 -0400, Chris Mason wrote: > > 3) The alternative would be to check lv->lv_block_exception inside > > lvm_snapshot_remap_block() instead of in the callers (returning "1" > > if it is NULL, and we don't want to do remap). This would avoid any > > problems in the future if someone else calls lvm_snapshot_remap_block() > > without checking lv_block_exception first. Untested patch below which > > should be equivalent to your previous patch. > > The only thing I don't like about this is that it makes it hides > the fact that lvm_snapshot_COW and a few other calls depend on > block_exception being valid. The code certainly looks right though, > just a matter of style. Well, lvm_snapshot_COW() is only called from one place, AFAICS, which is in __remap_snapshot() after we call lvm_snapshot_remap_block(), so we should be OK (could add a comment about this, and also the fact that you need to hold the lv_lock to call this function in the first place. Cheers, Andreas -- Andreas Dilger \ "If a man ate a pound of pasta and a pound of antipasto, \ would they cancel out, leaving him still hungry?" http://www-mddsp.enel.ucalgary.ca/People/adilger/ -- Dogbert ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [linux-lvm] [PATCH] fix oops when snapshots get full 2001-10-11 19:57 ` Andreas Dilger 2001-10-11 21:03 ` Chris Mason @ 2001-10-12 7:53 ` Joe Thornber 1 sibling, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread From: Joe Thornber @ 2001-10-12 7:53 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-lvm Andreas, Can you check this in please if you think it's correct. - Joe ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2001-10-12 7:53 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2001-10-11 17:49 [linux-lvm] [PATCH] fix oops when snapshots get full Chris Mason 2001-10-11 19:57 ` Andreas Dilger 2001-10-11 21:03 ` Chris Mason 2001-10-11 21:37 ` Andreas Dilger 2001-10-12 7:53 ` Joe Thornber
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).