[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100614232150.GI6590@dastard>
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 09:21:50 +1000
From: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc: linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
viro@...IV.linux.org.uk, josef@...hat.com, jeffmerkey@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] fsfreeze: emergency thaw will deadlock on s_umount
On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 11:20:11AM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 05:19:51PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > The emergency thaw process uses iterate_super() which holds the
> > sb->s_umount lock in read mode. The current thaw_super() code takes
> > the sb->s_umount lock in write mode, hence leading to an instant
> > deadlock.
> >
> > Pass the emergency state into the thaw_bdev/thaw_super code to avoid
> > taking the s_umount lock in this case. We are running under the bdev
> > freeze mutex, so this is still serialised against freeze despite
> > only having a read lock on the sb->s_umount. Hence it should be safe
> > to execute in this manner, especially given that emergency thaw is a
> > rarely executed "get-out-of-jail" feature.
>
> This is correct as long as no one calls thaw_super directly, which
> is not the case currently.
Yeah, the idea of the first two patches is that they can be applied
to a current tree and backported and prevent the infinite loop or
deadlock. The problem of thaw_bdev/thaw_super is what the rest of
the patches are supposed to address.
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@...morbit.com
--
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