Re: [PATCH v2 9/8] don't fool lockdep in freeze_super() and thaw_super() paths

[Jan Kara]

On Wed 12-08-15 15:11:38, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 08/11, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > The only essential change is that I dropped the lockdep improvements
> > as we discussed. This means that 8/8 was changed a bit, and I decided
> > to add the new documentation patch, see 3/8.
> 
> Update: The recent
> 
> 	[PATCH 0/2] xfs: kill lockdep false positives from readdir
> 
> changes from Dave fixed the problems ILOCK false-positives. So we can
> add the additional patch which (modulo comments) just turns v2 back into
> v1.
> 
> Dave, Jan, you seem to agree with these patches. How should we route
> this all?

Regarding the routing, ideally Al Viro should take these as a VFS
maintainer.
 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Subject: [PATCH v2 9/8] don't fool lockdep in freeze_super() and thaw_super() paths
> 
> sb_wait_write()->percpu_rwsem_release() fools lockdep to avoid the
> false-positives. Now that xfs was fixed by Dave we can remove it and
> change freeze_super() and thaw_super() to run with s_writers.rw_sem
> locks held; we add two trivial helpers for that, sb_freeze_release()
> and sb_freeze_acquire().
> 
> While at it, kill the outdated part of the comment above sb_wait_write.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx>

The patch looks good. Just one nit:

> +	for (level = SB_FREEZE_LEVELS; --level >= 0; )
> +		percpu_rwsem_release(sb->s_writers.rw_sem + level, 0, _THIS_IP_);

It is more common (and to me more readable) to have the loop written as:

for (level = SB_FREEZE_LEVELS - 1; level >= 0; level--)

I agree what you do is shorter but IMHO it's just an unnecessary
obfuscation :)

Otherwise feel free to add:

Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxxx>

								Honza

> +}
> +
> +/*
> + * Tell lockdep we are holding these locks before we call ->unfreeze_fs(sb).
> + */
> +static void sb_freeze_acquire(struct super_block *sb)
>  {
>  	int level;
>  
>  	for (level = 0; level < SB_FREEZE_LEVELS; ++level)
>  		percpu_rwsem_acquire(sb->s_writers.rw_sem + level, 0, _THIS_IP_);
> +}
> +
> +static void sb_freeze_unlock(struct super_block *sb)
> +{
> +	int level;
>  
>  	for (level = SB_FREEZE_LEVELS; --level >= 0; )
>  		percpu_up_write(sb->s_writers.rw_sem + level);
> @@ -1329,6 +1336,7 @@ int freeze_super(struct super_block *sb)
>  	 * sees write activity when frozen is set to SB_FREEZE_COMPLETE.
>  	 */
>  	sb->s_writers.frozen = SB_FREEZE_COMPLETE;
> +	sb_freeze_release(sb);
>  	up_write(&sb->s_umount);
>  	return 0;
>  }
> @@ -1355,11 +1363,14 @@ int thaw_super(struct super_block *sb)
>  		goto out;
>  	}
>  
> +	sb_freeze_acquire(sb);
> +
>  	if (sb->s_op->unfreeze_fs) {
>  		error = sb->s_op->unfreeze_fs(sb);
>  		if (error) {
>  			printk(KERN_ERR
>  				"VFS:Filesystem thaw failed\n");
> +			sb_freeze_release(sb);
>  			up_write(&sb->s_umount);
>  			return error;
>  		}
> -- 
> 1.5.5.1
> 
> 
-- 
Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxxx>
SUSE Labs, CR
--
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/