Re: [PATCH 1/3] Implement generic freeze feature

[Takashi Sato]

Hi,

Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > --- linux-2.6.27-rc5.org/fs/block_dev.c 2008-08-29 07:52:02.000000000 +0900
> > +++ linux-2.6.27-rc5-freeze/fs/block_dev.c 2008-09-05 20:00:29.000000000 +0900
> > @@ -285,6 +285,8 @@ static void init_once(void *foo)
> >      INIT_LIST_HEAD(&bdev->bd_holder_list);
> >  #endif
> >      inode_init_once(&ei->vfs_inode);
> > +     /* Initialize mutex for freeze. */
> > +     mutex_init(&bdev->bd_fsfreeze_mutex);
>
> Why not just freeze_mutex?

The Linux kernel has already had the name of "freezer" in the part of
power-management.  So I named the above mutex "fsfreeze"
(filesystem freeze) to distinguish it from the existent "freezer".
Andrew pointed it out.

> >  struct super_block *freeze_bdev(struct block_device *bdev)
> >  {
> >       struct super_block *sb;
> >
> > +    mutex_lock(&bdev->bd_fsfreeze_mutex);
> > +    if (bdev->bd_fsfreeze_count > 0) {
> > +        bdev->bd_fsfreeze_count++;
> > +        sb = get_super(bdev);
> > +        mutex_unlock(&bdev->bd_fsfreeze_mutex);
> > +        return sb;
> > +    }
> > +    bdev->bd_fsfreeze_count++;
> > +
> >      down(&bdev->bd_mount_sem);
>
> Note that we still have duplication with the bd_mount_sem.  I think
> you should look into getting rid of it and instead do a check of
> the freeze_count under proper freeze_mutex protection.

In the original implementation,
while the filesystem is frozen, subsequent mounts wait for unfreeze
with the semaphore (bd_mount_sem).
But if we replace the semphore with the check of the freeze_count,
subsequent mounts will abort.
I think the original behavior shouldn't be changed, so the existing bd_mount_sem
is better.

> > @@ -244,6 +274,8 @@ void thaw_bdev(struct block_device *bdev
> >  }
> >
> >        up(&bdev->bd_mount_sem);
> > +     mutex_unlock(&bdev->bd_fsfreeze_mutex);
> > +     return 0;
>
> Why do you add a return value here if we always return 0 anyway?

I forgot to remove the unneeded return value in above old patch.
But I need to implement a return value in the new patch
because thaw_bdev() needs to return an IO error which occurs
in unlockfs().
Eric pointed it out.

Cheers, Takashi

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