On Thursday, August 04, 2011, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 03, 2011, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> > > Freeze all filesystems during the freezing of tasks by calling
> > > freeze_bdev() for each of them and thaw them during the thawing
> > > of tasks with the help of thaw_bdev().
> > >
> > > This is needed by hibernation, because some filesystems (e.g. XFS)
> > > deadlock with the preallocation of memory used by it if the memory
> > > pressure caused by it is too heavy.
> > >
> > > The additional benefit of this change is that, if something goes
> > > wrong after filesystems have been frozen, they will stay in a
> > > consistent state and journal replays won't be necessary (e.g. after
> > > a failing suspend or resume). In particular, this should help to
> > > solve a long-standing issue that in some cases during resume from
> > > hibernation the boot loader causes the journal to be replied for the
> > > filesystem containing the kernel image and initrd causing it to
> > > become inconsistent with the information stored in the hibernation
> > > image.
> >
> > > +/**
> > > + * freeze_filesystems - Force all filesystems into a consistent state.
> > > + */
> > > +void freeze_filesystems(void)
> > > +{
> > > + struct super_block *sb;
> > > +
> > > + lockdep_off();
> >
> > Ouch. So... why do we need to silence this?
>
> So that it doesn't complain? :-)
>
> I'll need some time to get the exact details here.
So, this is because ext3_freeze() that doesn't call
journal_unlock_updates() on success, which quite frankly looks like
a bug in ext3 to me. At least that's different from what ext4 does
in exactly the same situation (which looks correct).
If ext3_freeze() called journal_unlock_updates() on success too and
the call to journal_unlock_updates() is removed from ext3_unfreeze(),
we wouldn't need that lockdep_off()/lockdep_on() around the loop.
I need someone with ext3/ext4 knowledge to comment here, though.
Moreover, I'm not sure if other filesystems don't do such things.
Anyway, this is just a false-positive, even with the ext3 code as is.
> > > + /*
> > > + * Freeze in reverse order so filesystems dependant upon others are
> > > + * frozen in the right order (eg. loopback on ext3).
> > > + */
> > > + list_for_each_entry_reverse(sb, &super_blocks, s_list) {
> > > + if (!sb->s_root || !sb->s_bdev ||
> > > + (sb->s_frozen == SB_FREEZE_TRANS) ||
> > > + (sb->s_flags & MS_RDONLY) ||
> > > + (sb->s_flags & MS_FROZEN))
> > > + continue;
> >
> > Should we stop NFS from modifying remote server, too?
>
> What do you mean exactly?
>
> > Plus... ext3 writes to read-only filesystems on mount; not sure if it
> > does it later. But RDONLY means 'user cant write to it' not 'bdev will
> > not be modified'. Should we freeze all?
> >
> > How can 'already frozen' happen?
> >
> > > + list_for_each_entry(sb, &super_blocks, s_list)
> > > + if (sb->s_flags & MS_FROZEN) {
> > > + sb->s_flags &= ~MS_FROZEN;
> > > + thaw_bdev(sb->s_bdev, sb);
> > > + }
> >
> > ...because we'll unfreeze it even if we did not freeze it...
>
> So we need not check MS_FROZEN in freeze_filesystems(). OK
Thanks,
Rafael
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
