[lkml]   [2010]   [Mar]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] Introduce freeze_super and thaw_super for the fsfreeze ioctl
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 10:22:00AM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
> Currently the way we do freezing is by passing sb>s_bdev to freeze_bdev and then
> letting it do all the work. But freezing is more of an fs thing, and doesn't
> really have much to do with the bdev at all, all the work gets done with the
> super. In btrfs we do not populate s_bdev, since we can have multiple bdev's
> for one fs and setting s_bdev makes removing devices from a pool kind of tricky.
> This means that freezing a btrfs filesystem fails, which causes us to corrupt
> with things like tux-on-ice which use the fsfreeze mechanism. So instead of
> populating sb->s_bdev with a random bdev in our pool, I've broken the actual fs
> freezing stuff into freeze_super and thaw_super. These just take the
> super_block that we're freezing and does the appropriate work. It's basically
> just copy and pasted from freeze_bdev. I've then converted freeze_bdev over to
> use the new super helpers. I've tested this with ext4 and btrfs and verified
> everything continues to work the same as before.
> The only new gotcha is multiple calls to the fsfreeze ioctl will return EBUSY if
> the fs is already frozen. I thought this was a better solution than adding a
> freeze counter to the super_block, but if everybody hates this idea I'm open to
> suggestions. Thanks,

Locking is all wrong there. We don't need to worry about umount; we *already*
have an active reference. And leaving a kernel object with semaphore held
when ioctl returns is completely wrong.

 \ /
  Last update: 2010-03-23 15:31    [W:0.063 / U:0.904 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site