On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 04:01:05PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote: > On Tue 24-10-23 15:01:11, Christian Brauner wrote: > > The old method of implementing block device freeze and thaw operations > > required us to rely on get_active_super() to walk the list of all > > superblocks on the system to find any superblock that might use the > > block device. This is wasteful and not very pleasant overall. > > > > Now that we can finally go straight from block device to owning > > superblock things become way simpler. > > > > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230927-vfs-super-freeze-v1-3-ecc36d9ab4d9@xxxxxxxxxx > > Signed-off-by: Christian Brauner <brauner@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Some comments below: Thanks, all great points! > > > diff --git a/block/bdev.c b/block/bdev.c > > index a3e2af580a73..9deacd346192 100644 > > --- a/block/bdev.c > > +++ b/block/bdev.c > > @@ -222,31 +222,24 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(sync_blockdev_range); > > */ > > int bdev_freeze(struct block_device *bdev) > > { > > - struct super_block *sb; > > int error = 0; > > > > mutex_lock(&bdev->bd_fsfreeze_mutex); > > - if (++bdev->bd_fsfreeze_count > 1) > > - goto done; > > - > > - sb = get_active_super(bdev); > > - if (!sb) > > - goto sync; > > - if (sb->s_op->freeze_super) > > - error = sb->s_op->freeze_super(sb, FREEZE_HOLDER_USERSPACE); > > - else > > - error = freeze_super(sb, FREEZE_HOLDER_USERSPACE); > > - deactivate_super(sb); > > > > - if (error) { > > - bdev->bd_fsfreeze_count--; > > - goto done; > > + if (atomic_inc_return(&bdev->bd_fsfreeze_count) > 1) { > > + mutex_unlock(&bdev->bd_fsfreeze_mutex); > > + return 0; > > + } > > + > > + mutex_lock(&bdev->bd_holder_lock); > > + if (bdev->bd_holder_ops && bdev->bd_holder_ops->freeze) { > > + error = bdev->bd_holder_ops->freeze(bdev); > > + lockdep_assert_not_held(&bdev->bd_holder_lock); > > + } else { > > + mutex_unlock(&bdev->bd_holder_lock); > > + error = sync_blockdev(bdev); > > } > > - bdev->bd_fsfreeze_sb = sb; > > > > -sync: > > - error = sync_blockdev(bdev); > > -done: > > mutex_unlock(&bdev->bd_fsfreeze_mutex); > > return error; > > It's somewhat strange that if we return error here, we still keep > bd_fsfreeze_count elevated. So I'd add here: > > if (error) > atomic_dec(&bdev->bd_fsfreeze_count); Yes, good point. Also means we can move it out of fs_bdev_freeze(). > > > @@ -262,29 +255,30 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(bdev_freeze); > > */ > > int bdev_thaw(struct block_device *bdev) > > { > > - struct super_block *sb; > > - int error = -EINVAL; > > + int error = -EINVAL, nr_freeze; > > > > mutex_lock(&bdev->bd_fsfreeze_mutex); > > - if (!bdev->bd_fsfreeze_count) > > + > > + /* > > + * If this returns < 0 it means that @bd_fsfreeze_count was > > + * already 0 and no decrement was performed. > > + */ > > + nr_freeze = atomic_dec_if_positive(&bdev->bd_fsfreeze_count); > > + if (nr_freeze < 0) > > goto out; > > > > error = 0; > > - if (--bdev->bd_fsfreeze_count > 0) > > + if (nr_freeze > 0) > > goto out; > > > > - sb = bdev->bd_fsfreeze_sb; > > - if (!sb) > > - goto out; > > + mutex_lock(&bdev->bd_holder_lock); > > + if (bdev->bd_holder_ops && bdev->bd_holder_ops->thaw) { > > + error = bdev->bd_holder_ops->thaw(bdev); > > + lockdep_assert_not_held(&bdev->bd_holder_lock); > > + } else { > > + mutex_unlock(&bdev->bd_holder_lock); > > + } > > > > - if (sb->s_op->thaw_super) > > - error = sb->s_op->thaw_super(sb, FREEZE_HOLDER_USERSPACE); > > - else > > - error = thaw_super(sb, FREEZE_HOLDER_USERSPACE); > > - if (error) > > - bdev->bd_fsfreeze_count++; > > - else > > - bdev->bd_fsfreeze_sb = NULL; > > Here I'd also keep the error handling behavior and increment > bd_fsfreeze_count in case of error from ->thaw(). Yeah, the patch does that but in fs_bdev_thaw() which is I probably because it used to rely on bd_holder_lock. Moving back to bdev_thaw(), thanks! > > > diff --git a/fs/super.c b/fs/super.c > > index b224182f2440..ee0795ce09c7 100644 > > --- a/fs/super.c > > +++ b/fs/super.c > > @@ -1430,14 +1430,8 @@ struct super_block *sget_dev(struct fs_context *fc, dev_t dev) > > EXPORT_SYMBOL(sget_dev); > > > > #ifdef CONFIG_BLOCK > > -/* > > - * Lock the superblock that is holder of the bdev. Returns the superblock > > - * pointer if we successfully locked the superblock and it is alive. Otherwise > > - * we return NULL and just unlock bdev->bd_holder_lock. > > - * > > - * The function must be called with bdev->bd_holder_lock and releases it. > > - */ > > -static struct super_block *bdev_super_lock_shared(struct block_device *bdev) > > + > > +static struct super_block *bdev_super_lock(struct block_device *bdev, bool excl) > > __releases(&bdev->bd_holder_lock) > > { > > struct super_block *sb = bdev->bd_holder; > > @@ -1451,18 +1445,37 @@ static struct super_block *bdev_super_lock_shared(struct block_device *bdev) > > spin_lock(&sb_lock); > > sb->s_count++; > > spin_unlock(&sb_lock); > > + > > mutex_unlock(&bdev->bd_holder_lock); > > > > - locked = super_lock_shared(sb); > > - if (!locked || !sb->s_root || !(sb->s_flags & SB_ACTIVE)) { > > - put_super(sb); > > + locked = super_lock(sb, excl); > > + put_super(sb); > > Perhaps you can preserve the comment before put_super() here like: > /* > * The superblock is not SB_DYING and we hold s_umount, we can drop > * our temporary reference now. > */ Yes, will do. > > > + if (!locked) > > + return NULL; > > + > > + return sb; > > +} > > + > > +/* > > + * Lock the superblock that is holder of the bdev. Returns the superblock > > + * pointer if we successfully locked the superblock and it is alive. Otherwise > > + * we return NULL and just unlock bdev->bd_holder_lock. > > + * > > + * The function must be called with bdev->bd_holder_lock and releases it. > > + */ > > +static struct super_block *bdev_super_lock_shared(struct block_device *bdev) > > +{ > > + struct super_block *sb; > > + > > + sb = bdev_super_lock(bdev, false); > > + if (!sb) > > + return NULL; > > + > > + if (!sb->s_root || !(sb->s_flags & SB_ACTIVE)) { > > + super_unlock_shared(sb); > > Any reason why you didn't keep these checks in bdev_super_lock()? The use > in get_bdev_super() is actually limited to active superblocks anyway. And > then we can just get rid of bdev_super_lock_shared() and use > bdev_super_lock(bdev, false) instead. Yeah, good idea. Done. > > > @@ -1495,9 +1508,76 @@ static void fs_bdev_sync(struct block_device *bdev) > > super_unlock_shared(sb); > > } > > > > +static struct super_block *get_bdev_super(struct block_device *bdev) > > +{ > > + bool active = false; > > + struct super_block *sb; > > + > > + sb = bdev_super_lock(bdev, true); > > + if (sb) { > > + active = atomic_inc_not_zero(&sb->s_active); > > + super_unlock_excl(sb); > > + } > > + if (!active) > > + return NULL; > > + return sb; > > +} > > + > > +static int fs_bdev_freeze(struct block_device *bdev) > > +{ > > + struct super_block *sb; > > + int error = 0; > > + > > + lockdep_assert_held(&bdev->bd_fsfreeze_mutex); > > + > > + if (WARN_ON_ONCE(unlikely(!bdev->bd_holder))) > > + return -EINVAL; > > This is going to break assumptions that bd_holder_lock is dropped by the > ->freeze callback. Also the check seems a bit pointless to me given the > single callsite but whatever. > > > + > > + sb = get_bdev_super(bdev); > > + if (!sb) > > + return -EINVAL; > > + > > + if (sb->s_op->freeze_super) > > + error = sb->s_op->freeze_super(sb, FREEZE_HOLDER_USERSPACE); > > + else > > + error = freeze_super(sb, FREEZE_HOLDER_USERSPACE); > > + if (error) > > + atomic_dec(&bdev->bd_fsfreeze_count); > > This IMHO belongs into bdev_freeze(). Yeah, I've done that now. > > > + if (!error) > > + error = sync_blockdev(bdev); > > + deactivate_super(sb); > > + return error; > > +} > > + > > +static int fs_bdev_thaw(struct block_device *bdev) > > +{ > > + struct super_block *sb; > > + int error; > > + > > + lockdep_assert_held(&bdev->bd_fsfreeze_mutex); > > + > > + if (WARN_ON_ONCE(unlikely(!bdev->bd_holder))) > > + return -EINVAL; > > The same comment about bd_holder_lock applies here... > > > + > > + sb = get_bdev_super(bdev); > > + if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!sb)) > > + return -EINVAL; > > + > > + if (sb->s_op->thaw_super) > > + error = sb->s_op->thaw_super(sb, FREEZE_HOLDER_USERSPACE); > > + else > > + error = thaw_super(sb, FREEZE_HOLDER_USERSPACE); > > + if (error) > > + atomic_inc(&bdev->bd_fsfreeze_count); > > And this error handling belongs into bdev_thaw(). Yes, done. Here's the updated diff: >From ac7b3ae74f1eae9d85a9e179ecf7facc498e9bee Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Christian Brauner <brauner@xxxxxxxxxx> Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2023 15:21:16 +0200 Subject: [PATCH v3 05/10] bdev: implement freeze and thaw holder operations The old method of implementing block device freeze and thaw operations required us to rely on get_active_super() to walk the list of all superblocks on the system to find any superblock that might use the block device. This is wasteful and not very pleasant overall. Now that we can finally go straight from block device to owning superblock things become way simpler. Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230927-vfs-super-freeze-v1-3-ecc36d9ab4d9@xxxxxxxxxx Reviewed-by: Darrick J. Wong <djwong@xxxxxxxxxx> Signed-off-by: Christian Brauner <brauner@xxxxxxxxxx> --- block/bdev.c | 65 +++++++++++++------------ fs/super.c | 99 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------- include/linux/blk_types.h | 2 +- 3 files changed, 112 insertions(+), 54 deletions(-) diff --git a/block/bdev.c b/block/bdev.c index a3e2af580a73..4a502fb9b814 100644 --- a/block/bdev.c +++ b/block/bdev.c @@ -222,31 +222,27 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(sync_blockdev_range); */ int bdev_freeze(struct block_device *bdev) { - struct super_block *sb; int error = 0; mutex_lock(&bdev->bd_fsfreeze_mutex); - if (++bdev->bd_fsfreeze_count > 1) - goto done; - - sb = get_active_super(bdev); - if (!sb) - goto sync; - if (sb->s_op->freeze_super) - error = sb->s_op->freeze_super(sb, FREEZE_HOLDER_USERSPACE); - else - error = freeze_super(sb, FREEZE_HOLDER_USERSPACE); - deactivate_super(sb); - if (error) { - bdev->bd_fsfreeze_count--; - goto done; + if (atomic_inc_return(&bdev->bd_fsfreeze_count) > 1) { + mutex_unlock(&bdev->bd_fsfreeze_mutex); + return 0; + } + + mutex_lock(&bdev->bd_holder_lock); + if (bdev->bd_holder_ops && bdev->bd_holder_ops->freeze) { + error = bdev->bd_holder_ops->freeze(bdev); + lockdep_assert_not_held(&bdev->bd_holder_lock); + } else { + mutex_unlock(&bdev->bd_holder_lock); + error = sync_blockdev(bdev); } - bdev->bd_fsfreeze_sb = sb; -sync: - error = sync_blockdev(bdev); -done: + if (error) + atomic_dec(&bdev->bd_fsfreeze_count); + mutex_unlock(&bdev->bd_fsfreeze_mutex); return error; } @@ -262,29 +258,32 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(bdev_freeze); */ int bdev_thaw(struct block_device *bdev) { - struct super_block *sb; - int error = -EINVAL; + int error = -EINVAL, nr_freeze; mutex_lock(&bdev->bd_fsfreeze_mutex); - if (!bdev->bd_fsfreeze_count) + + /* + * If this returns < 0 it means that @bd_fsfreeze_count was + * already 0 and no decrement was performed. + */ + nr_freeze = atomic_dec_if_positive(&bdev->bd_fsfreeze_count); + if (nr_freeze < 0) goto out; error = 0; - if (--bdev->bd_fsfreeze_count > 0) + if (nr_freeze > 0) goto out; - sb = bdev->bd_fsfreeze_sb; - if (!sb) - goto out; + mutex_lock(&bdev->bd_holder_lock); + if (bdev->bd_holder_ops && bdev->bd_holder_ops->thaw) { + error = bdev->bd_holder_ops->thaw(bdev); + lockdep_assert_not_held(&bdev->bd_holder_lock); + } else { + mutex_unlock(&bdev->bd_holder_lock); + } - if (sb->s_op->thaw_super) - error = sb->s_op->thaw_super(sb, FREEZE_HOLDER_USERSPACE); - else - error = thaw_super(sb, FREEZE_HOLDER_USERSPACE); if (error) - bdev->bd_fsfreeze_count++; - else - bdev->bd_fsfreeze_sb = NULL; + atomic_inc(&bdev->bd_fsfreeze_count); out: mutex_unlock(&bdev->bd_fsfreeze_mutex); return error; diff --git a/fs/super.c b/fs/super.c index b224182f2440..3b39da5334c5 100644 --- a/fs/super.c +++ b/fs/super.c @@ -1437,7 +1437,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(sget_dev); * * The function must be called with bdev->bd_holder_lock and releases it. */ -static struct super_block *bdev_super_lock_shared(struct block_device *bdev) +static struct super_block *bdev_super_lock(struct block_device *bdev, bool excl) __releases(&bdev->bd_holder_lock) { struct super_block *sb = bdev->bd_holder; @@ -1451,18 +1451,25 @@ static struct super_block *bdev_super_lock_shared(struct block_device *bdev) spin_lock(&sb_lock); sb->s_count++; spin_unlock(&sb_lock); + mutex_unlock(&bdev->bd_holder_lock); - locked = super_lock_shared(sb); - if (!locked || !sb->s_root || !(sb->s_flags & SB_ACTIVE)) { - put_super(sb); - return NULL; - } + locked = super_lock(sb, excl); + /* - * The superblock is active and we hold s_umount, we can drop our - * temporary reference now. - */ + * If the superblock wasn't already SB_DYING then we hold + * s_umount and can safely drop our temporary reference. + */ put_super(sb); + + if (!locked) + return NULL; + + if (!sb->s_root || !(sb->s_flags & SB_ACTIVE)) { + super_unlock(sb, excl); + return NULL; + } + return sb; } @@ -1470,7 +1477,7 @@ static void fs_bdev_mark_dead(struct block_device *bdev, bool surprise) { struct super_block *sb; - sb = bdev_super_lock_shared(bdev); + sb = bdev_super_lock(bdev, false); if (!sb) return; @@ -1488,16 +1495,74 @@ static void fs_bdev_sync(struct block_device *bdev) { struct super_block *sb; - sb = bdev_super_lock_shared(bdev); + sb = bdev_super_lock(bdev, false); if (!sb) return; + sync_filesystem(sb); super_unlock_shared(sb); } +static struct super_block *get_bdev_super(struct block_device *bdev) +{ + bool active = false; + struct super_block *sb; + + sb = bdev_super_lock(bdev, true); + if (sb) { + active = atomic_inc_not_zero(&sb->s_active); + super_unlock_excl(sb); + } + if (!active) + return NULL; + return sb; +} + +static int fs_bdev_freeze(struct block_device *bdev) +{ + struct super_block *sb; + int error = 0; + + lockdep_assert_held(&bdev->bd_fsfreeze_mutex); + + sb = get_bdev_super(bdev); + if (!sb) + return -EINVAL; + + if (sb->s_op->freeze_super) + error = sb->s_op->freeze_super(sb, FREEZE_HOLDER_USERSPACE); + else + error = freeze_super(sb, FREEZE_HOLDER_USERSPACE); + if (!error) + error = sync_blockdev(bdev); + deactivate_super(sb); + return error; +} + +static int fs_bdev_thaw(struct block_device *bdev) +{ + struct super_block *sb; + int error; + + lockdep_assert_held(&bdev->bd_fsfreeze_mutex); + + sb = get_bdev_super(bdev); + if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!sb)) + return -EINVAL; + + if (sb->s_op->thaw_super) + error = sb->s_op->thaw_super(sb, FREEZE_HOLDER_USERSPACE); + else + error = thaw_super(sb, FREEZE_HOLDER_USERSPACE); + deactivate_super(sb); + return error; +} + const struct blk_holder_ops fs_holder_ops = { .mark_dead = fs_bdev_mark_dead, .sync = fs_bdev_sync, + .freeze = fs_bdev_freeze, + .thaw = fs_bdev_thaw, }; EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(fs_holder_ops); @@ -1527,15 +1592,10 @@ int setup_bdev_super(struct super_block *sb, int sb_flags, } /* - * Until SB_BORN flag is set, there can be no active superblock - * references and thus no filesystem freezing. get_active_super() will - * just loop waiting for SB_BORN so even bdev_freeze() cannot proceed. - * - * It is enough to check bdev was not frozen before we set s_bdev. + * It is enough to check bdev was not frozen before we set + * s_bdev as freezing will wait until SB_BORN is set. */ - mutex_lock(&bdev->bd_fsfreeze_mutex); - if (bdev->bd_fsfreeze_count > 0) { - mutex_unlock(&bdev->bd_fsfreeze_mutex); + if (atomic_read(&bdev->bd_fsfreeze_count) > 0) { if (fc) warnf(fc, "%pg: Can't mount, blockdev is frozen", bdev); bdev_release(bdev_handle); @@ -1548,7 +1608,6 @@ int setup_bdev_super(struct super_block *sb, int sb_flags, if (bdev_stable_writes(bdev)) sb->s_iflags |= SB_I_STABLE_WRITES; spin_unlock(&sb_lock); - mutex_unlock(&bdev->bd_fsfreeze_mutex); snprintf(sb->s_id, sizeof(sb->s_id), "%pg", bdev); shrinker_debugfs_rename(&sb->s_shrink, "sb-%s:%s", sb->s_type->name, diff --git a/include/linux/blk_types.h b/include/linux/blk_types.h index d5c5e59ddbd2..88e1848b0869 100644 --- a/include/linux/blk_types.h +++ b/include/linux/blk_types.h @@ -57,7 +57,7 @@ struct block_device { const struct blk_holder_ops *bd_holder_ops; struct mutex bd_holder_lock; /* The counter of freeze processes */ - int bd_fsfreeze_count; + atomic_t bd_fsfreeze_count; int bd_holders; struct kobject *bd_holder_dir; -- 2.34.1
