> On May 11, 2018, at 20:06, Ilya Dryomov <idryomov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 11:12 AM, Yan, Zheng <zyan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> this avoid force umount getting stuck at ceph_osdc_sync()
>>
>> Signed-off-by: "Yan, Zheng" <zyan@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> fs/ceph/super.c | 1 +
>> include/linux/ceph/osd_client.h | 5 ++++-
>> net/ceph/osd_client.c | 43 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
>> 3 files changed, 43 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/ceph/super.c b/fs/ceph/super.c
>> index 3c1155803444..40664e13cc0f 100644
>> --- a/fs/ceph/super.c
>> +++ b/fs/ceph/super.c
>> @@ -793,6 +793,7 @@ static void ceph_umount_begin(struct super_block *sb)
>> if (!fsc)
>> return;
>> fsc->mount_state = CEPH_MOUNT_SHUTDOWN;
>> + ceph_osdc_abort_requests(&fsc->client->osdc, -EIO);
>> ceph_mdsc_force_umount(fsc->mdsc);
>> return;
>> }
>> diff --git a/include/linux/ceph/osd_client.h b/include/linux/ceph/osd_client.h
>> index b73dd7ebe585..f61736963236 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/ceph/osd_client.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/ceph/osd_client.h
>> @@ -347,6 +347,7 @@ struct ceph_osd_client {
>> struct rb_root linger_map_checks;
>> atomic_t num_requests;
>> atomic_t num_homeless;
>> + int abort_code;
>
> Why osdc->abort_code and all __submit_request() hunks are needed?
> If we are in a forced umount situation, no new I/Os should be accepted
> anyway.
No code guarantees that ceph_writepages_start()/writepage_nounlock() are
not being executed when user does forced umount. They may start new
osd requests after forced umount.
Regards
Yan, Zheng
>
> osdc->lock taken for write in ceph_osdc_abort_requests() is enough to
> lock out __submit_request().
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ilya
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
