[lkml]   [2017]   [Oct]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [GIT PULL 02/58] lightnvm: prevent bd removal if busy

> On 13 Oct 2017, at 17.58, Javier González <> wrote:
>>> On 13 Oct 2017, at 17.35, Rakesh Pandit <> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 07:58:09AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 02:45:51PM +0200, Matias Bjørling wrote:
>>>> From: Rakesh Pandit <>
>>>> When a virtual block device is formatted and mounted after creating
>>>> with "nvme lnvm create... -t pblk", a removal from "nvm lnvm remove"
>>>> would result in this:
>>>> 446416.309757] bdi-block not registered
>>>> [446416.309773] ------------[ cut here ]------------
>>>> [446416.309780] WARNING: CPU: 3 PID: 4319 at fs/fs-writeback.c:2159
>>>> __mark_inode_dirty+0x268/0x340
>>>> Ideally removal should return -EBUSY as block device is mounted after
>>>> formatting. This patch tries to address this checking if whole device
>>>> or any partition of it already mounted or not before removal.
>>> How is this different from any other block device that can be
>>> removed even if a file system is mounted?
>> One can create many virtual block devices on top of physical using:
>> nvme lnvm create ... -t pblk
>> And remove them using:
>> nvme lnvm remove
>> Because the block devices are virtual in nature created by a program I was
>> expecting removal to tell me they are busy instead of bdi-block not registered
>> following by a WARNING (above). My use case was writing automatic test case
>> but I assumed this is useful in general.
>>>> Whole device is checked using "bd_super" member of block device. This
>>>> member is always set once block device has been mounted using a
>>>> filesystem. Another member "bd_part_count" takes care of checking any
>>>> if any partitions are under use. "bd_part_count" is only updated
>>>> under locks when partitions are opened or closed (first open and last
>>>> release). This at least does take care sending -EBUSY if removal is
>>>> being attempted while whole block device or any partition is mounted.
>>> That's a massive layering violation, and a driver has no business
>>> looking at these fields.
>> Okay, I didn't consider this earlier. I would suggest a revert for this.
> The use case is still valid, since a block device typically does not disappear under a file system - at least not because of a script suddenly removing it by mistake.
> Any suggestion on how we can do this better?

Thinking about it, it does not seem like we have any checks now when removing a fabrics block device?

Would it make sense to have a common way to let drivers know if they are in use, at least to give a warning?

 \ /
  Last update: 2017-10-14 08:05    [W:0.104 / U:11.676 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site