[Patch] JBD and JBD2 missing set_freezable()

[Patch] JBD and JBD2 missing set_freezable()

[Nigel Cunningham]

Hi all.

With the latest and greatest changes to the freezer, I started seeing
panics that were caused by jbd2 running post-process freezing and
hitting the canary BUG_ON for non-TuxOnIce I/O submission. I've traced
this back to a lack of set_freezable calls in both jbd and jbd2. Since
they're clearly meant to be frozen (there are tests for freezing()), I
submit the following patch to add the missing calls.

Signed-off-by: Nigel Cunningham <nigel@tuxonice.net>

diff --git a/fs/jbd/journal.c b/fs/jbd/journal.c
index 59c09f9..89cd985 100644
--- a/fs/jbd/journal.c
+++ b/fs/jbd/journal.c
@@ -129,6 +129,8 @@ static int kjournald(void *arg)
 	setup_timer(&journal->j_commit_timer, commit_timeout,
 			(unsigned long)current);

+	set_freezable();
+
 	/* Record that the journal thread is running */
 	journal->j_task = current;
 	wake_up(&journal->j_wait_done_commit);
diff --git a/fs/jbd2/journal.c b/fs/jbd2/journal.c
index c0a5f9f..663e47c 100644
--- a/fs/jbd2/journal.c
+++ b/fs/jbd2/journal.c
@@ -139,6 +139,8 @@ static int kjournald2(void *arg)
 	setup_timer(&journal->j_commit_timer, commit_timeout,
 			(unsigned long)current);

+	set_freezable();
+
 	/* Record that the journal thread is running */
 	journal->j_task = current;
 	wake_up(&journal->j_wait_done_commit);
-- 
Evolution (n): A hypothetical process whereby improbable
events occur with alarming frequency, order arises from chaos, and
no one is given credit.

Re: [linux-pm] [Patch] JBD and JBD2 missing set_freezable()

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Friday, February 03, 2012, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> Hi all.
> 
> With the latest and greatest changes to the freezer, I started seeing
> panics that were caused by jbd2 running post-process freezing and
> hitting the canary BUG_ON for non-TuxOnIce I/O submission. I've traced
> this back to a lack of set_freezable calls in both jbd and jbd2. Since
> they're clearly meant to be frozen (there are tests for freezing()), I
> submit the following patch to add the missing calls.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Nigel Cunningham <nigel@tuxonice.net>

Well, I wonder what the filesystems people think about that.

Thanks,
Rafael


> diff --git a/fs/jbd/journal.c b/fs/jbd/journal.c
> index 59c09f9..89cd985 100644
> --- a/fs/jbd/journal.c
> +++ b/fs/jbd/journal.c
> @@ -129,6 +129,8 @@ static int kjournald(void *arg)
>  	setup_timer(&journal->j_commit_timer, commit_timeout,
>  			(unsigned long)current);
> 
> +	set_freezable();
> +
>  	/* Record that the journal thread is running */
>  	journal->j_task = current;
>  	wake_up(&journal->j_wait_done_commit);
> diff --git a/fs/jbd2/journal.c b/fs/jbd2/journal.c
> index c0a5f9f..663e47c 100644
> --- a/fs/jbd2/journal.c
> +++ b/fs/jbd2/journal.c
> @@ -139,6 +139,8 @@ static int kjournald2(void *arg)
>  	setup_timer(&journal->j_commit_timer, commit_timeout,
>  			(unsigned long)current);
> 
> +	set_freezable();
> +
>  	/* Record that the journal thread is running */
>  	journal->j_task = current;
>  	wake_up(&journal->j_wait_done_commit);
> 

Re: [linux-pm] [Patch] JBD and JBD2 missing set_freezable()

[Jan Kara]

On Sun 04-03-12 23:51:07, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Friday, February 03, 2012, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> > Hi all.
> > 
> > With the latest and greatest changes to the freezer, I started seeing
> > panics that were caused by jbd2 running post-process freezing and
> > hitting the canary BUG_ON for non-TuxOnIce I/O submission. I've traced
> > this back to a lack of set_freezable calls in both jbd and jbd2. Since
> > they're clearly meant to be frozen (there are tests for freezing()), I
> > submit the following patch to add the missing calls.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Nigel Cunningham <nigel@tuxonice.net>
> 
> Well, I wonder what the filesystems people think about that.
  Nigel is right that threads are meant to be freezable. If below patch
is needed for that, you have my ack.

  Just two notes:
1) Freezing the journal thread will effectively block filesystem activity
(not immediately but once transaction fills up) so you should better make
sure you don't need to do anything with the filesystem after freezing the
thread.

2) Is freezing journal thread still needed when we freeze filesystem in
suspend code? Because no IO should happen once filesystem is frozen...

								Honza
> 
> Thanks,
> Rafael
> 
> 
> > diff --git a/fs/jbd/journal.c b/fs/jbd/journal.c
> > index 59c09f9..89cd985 100644
> > --- a/fs/jbd/journal.c
> > +++ b/fs/jbd/journal.c
> > @@ -129,6 +129,8 @@ static int kjournald(void *arg)
> >  	setup_timer(&journal->j_commit_timer, commit_timeout,
> >  			(unsigned long)current);
> > 
> > +	set_freezable();
> > +
> >  	/* Record that the journal thread is running */
> >  	journal->j_task = current;
> >  	wake_up(&journal->j_wait_done_commit);
> > diff --git a/fs/jbd2/journal.c b/fs/jbd2/journal.c
> > index c0a5f9f..663e47c 100644
> > --- a/fs/jbd2/journal.c
> > +++ b/fs/jbd2/journal.c
> > @@ -139,6 +139,8 @@ static int kjournald2(void *arg)
> >  	setup_timer(&journal->j_commit_timer, commit_timeout,
> >  			(unsigned long)current);
> > 
> > +	set_freezable();
> > +
> >  	/* Record that the journal thread is running */
> >  	journal->j_task = current;
> >  	wake_up(&journal->j_wait_done_commit);
> > 
> 
-- 
Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
SUSE Labs, CR

Re: [linux-pm] [Patch] JBD and JBD2 missing set_freezable()

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

Hi,

Sorry for the delay.

On Monday, March 05, 2012, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Sun 04-03-12 23:51:07, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Friday, February 03, 2012, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> > > Hi all.
> > > 
> > > With the latest and greatest changes to the freezer, I started seeing
> > > panics that were caused by jbd2 running post-process freezing and
> > > hitting the canary BUG_ON for non-TuxOnIce I/O submission. I've traced
> > > this back to a lack of set_freezable calls in both jbd and jbd2. Since
> > > they're clearly meant to be frozen (there are tests for freezing()), I
> > > submit the following patch to add the missing calls.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Nigel Cunningham <nigel@tuxonice.net>
> > 
> > Well, I wonder what the filesystems people think about that.
>   Nigel is right that threads are meant to be freezable. If below patch
> is needed for that, you have my ack.

Yes, it is, thanks!  I'm going to push it for v3.4 along with PM updates.

>   Just two notes:
> 1) Freezing the journal thread will effectively block filesystem activity
> (not immediately but once transaction fills up) so you should better make
> sure you don't need to do anything with the filesystem after freezing the
> thread.

Sure, no worries. :-)

> 2) Is freezing journal thread still needed when we freeze filesystem in
> suspend code? Because no IO should happen once filesystem is frozen...

It won't be strictly necessary, but it won't hurt either.  However, until
we start freezing filesystems in suspend code, it is needed.

Thanks,
Rafael

 
> > > diff --git a/fs/jbd/journal.c b/fs/jbd/journal.c
> > > index 59c09f9..89cd985 100644
> > > --- a/fs/jbd/journal.c
> > > +++ b/fs/jbd/journal.c
> > > @@ -129,6 +129,8 @@ static int kjournald(void *arg)
> > >  	setup_timer(&journal->j_commit_timer, commit_timeout,
> > >  			(unsigned long)current);
> > > 
> > > +	set_freezable();
> > > +
> > >  	/* Record that the journal thread is running */
> > >  	journal->j_task = current;
> > >  	wake_up(&journal->j_wait_done_commit);
> > > diff --git a/fs/jbd2/journal.c b/fs/jbd2/journal.c
> > > index c0a5f9f..663e47c 100644
> > > --- a/fs/jbd2/journal.c
> > > +++ b/fs/jbd2/journal.c
> > > @@ -139,6 +139,8 @@ static int kjournald2(void *arg)
> > >  	setup_timer(&journal->j_commit_timer, commit_timeout,
> > >  			(unsigned long)current);
> > > 
> > > +	set_freezable();
> > > +
> > >  	/* Record that the journal thread is running */
> > >  	journal->j_task = current;
> > >  	wake_up(&journal->j_wait_done_commit);
> > > 
> > 
>