Message-ID: <20100608020741.GG2336@localhost.localdomain>
Date:	Mon, 7 Jun 2010 22:07:41 -0400
From:	Josef Bacik <josef@...hat.com>
To:	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
Cc:	Josef Bacik <josef@...hat.com>,
	Jeffrey Merkey <jeffmerkey@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	viro@...iv.linux.org.uk
Subject: Re: 2.6.34 echo j > /proc/sysrq-trigger causes inifnite
	unfreeze/Thaw event

On Tue, Jun 08, 2010 at 09:23:50AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 07, 2010 at 05:59:25PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 07, 2010 at 05:36:31PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jun 07, 2010 at 11:05:42AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Jun 03, 2010 at 11:30:30PM -0600, Jeffrey Merkey wrote:
> > > > > causes the FS Thaw stuff in fs/buffer.c to enter an infinite loop
> > > > > filling the /var/log/messages with junk and causing the hard drive to
> > > > > crank away endlessly.
> > > > 
> > > > Hmmm, looks pretty obvious what the 2.6.34 bug is:
> > > > 
> > > >         while (sb->s_bdev && !thaw_bdev(sb->s_bdev, sb))
> > > >                 printk(KERN_WARNING "Emergency Thaw on %s\n",
> > > >                        bdevname(sb->s_bdev, b));
> > > > 
> > > > thaw_bdev() returns 0 on success or not frozen, and returns non-zero
> > > > only if the unfreeze failed. Looks like it was broken from the start
> > > > to me.
> > > > 
> > > > Fixing that endless loop shows some other problems on 2.6.35,
> > > > though: the emergency unfreeze is not unfreezing frozen XFS
> > > > filesystems.  This appears to be caused by
> > > > 18e9e5104fcd9a973ffe3eed3816c87f2a1b6cd2 ("Introduce freeze_super
> > > > and thaw_super for the fsfreeze ioctl").
> > > > 
> > > > It appears that this introduces a significant mismatch between the
> > > > bdev freeze/thaw and the super freze/thaw. That is, if you freeze
> > > > with the sb method, you can only unfreeze via the sb method.
> > > > however, if you freeze via the bdev method, you can unfreeze by
> > > > either the bdev or sb method.  This breaks the nesting of the
> > > > freeze/thaw operations between dm and userspace, which can lead to
> > > > premature thawing of the filesystem.
> > > > 
> > > > Then there is this deadlock:
> > > > 
> > > > iterate_supers(do_thaw_one) does:
> > > > 
> > > > 	down_read(&sb->s_umount);
> > > > 	do_thaw_one(sb)
> > > > 	  thaw_bdev(sb->s_bdev, sb))
> > > > 	    thaw_super(sb)
> > > > 	      down_write(&sb->s_umount);
> > > > 
> > > > Which is an instant deadlock.
> > > > 
> > > > These problems were hidden by the fact that the emergency thaw code
> > > > was not getting past the thaw_bdev guards and so not triggering
> > > > this deadlock.
> > > > 
> > > > Al, Josef, what's the best way to fix this mess?
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Well we can do something like the following
> > > 
> > > 1) Make a __thaw_super() that just does all the work currently in thaw_super(),
> > > just without taking the s_umount semaphore.
> > > 2) Make an thaw_bdev_force or something like that that just sets
> > > bd_fsfreeze_count to 0 and calls __thaw_super().  The original intent was to
> > > make us call thaw until the thaw actually occured, so might as well just make it
> > > quick and painless.
> 
> Makes sense.  Only problem I can see for emergency thaws is that
> we'd call __thaw_super() under a down_read(&sb->s_umount) instead of
> the down_write(&sb->s_umount) lock we are currently supposed to hold
> for it. I don't think this is a problem because thaw_bdev is
> serialised by the bd_fsfreeze_mutex and it would still lock out new
> cals to freeze_super.
> 

Urgh yeah you're right.

> > > 3) Make do_thaw_one() call __thaw_super if sb->s_bdev doesn't exist.  I'm not
> > > sure if this happens currently, but it's nice just in case.
> 
> It doesn't happen currently, not sure what sort of kaboom might
> occur if we do :/
> 
> What about btrfs - wasn't freeze/thaw_super added so it could
> avoid the bdev interfaces as s_bdev is not reliable? Doesn't that
> mean we need to call thaw_super() in that case, even though we have
> a non-null sb->s_bdev?
> 

Yeah, thats why I made it unconditionally call thaw_super(), it should work out
fine for btrfs.

> > > This takes care of the s_umount problem and makes sure that do_thaw_one does
> > > actually thaw the device.  Does this sound kosher to everybody?  Thanks,
> 
> It will fix the emergency thaw problems, I think, but it doesn't
> solve the nesting problem. i.e.  freeze_bdev, followed by
> ioctl_fsfreeze(), followed by ioctl_fsthaw() will result in the
> filesystem being unfrozen while the caller for freeze_bdev (e.g.
> dm-snapshot) still needs the filesystem to be frozen.
> 
> Basically the change to the ioctls to call freeze/thaw_super() is
> the problem here - to work with dm-snapshot corectly they need to
> call freeze/thaw_bdev.  Perhaps we need some other way of signalling
> whether to use the bdev or sb level freeze/thaw interface as I think
> it needs to be consistent across a given superblock (dm, ioctl, fs
> and emergency thaw), not a mix of both...
> 

Well damnit.  I guess what we need to do is get rid of the freeze_bdev/thaw_bdev
interface altogether, and move the count stuff down to the super.  Anybody who
calls freeze_bdev/thaw_bdev knows the sb anyway, so if we get rid of
bd_fsfreeze_count and move it to sb->s_fsfreeze_count and do the same with
bd_fsfreeze_mutex then we could solve this altogether and simplify the
interface.  It grows the sb struct, but hey it shrinks the bdev struct :).  How
horrible of an idea is that?  Thanks,

Josef
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists