On 2011-02-16, at 20:50, Toshiyuki Okajima wrote:
> (2011/02/16 23:56), Jan Kara wrote:
>>
>>> I got a reproducer from Mizuma-san yesterday, and then I executed it on the kernel without a fixed patch. After an hour, I confirmed that this deadlock happened.
>>>
>>> However, on the kernel with a fixed patch, this deadlock doesn't still happen
>>> after 12 hours passed.
>>>
>>> The patch for linux-2.6.38-rc4 is as follows:
>>> ---
>>> fs/fs-writeback.c | 2 +-
>>> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/fs/fs-writeback.c b/fs/fs-writeback.c
>>> index 59c6e49..1c9a05e 100644
>>> --- a/fs/fs-writeback.c
>>> +++ b/fs/fs-writeback.c
>>> @@ -456,7 +456,7 @@ static bool pin_sb_for_writeback(struct super_block *sb)
>>> spin_unlock(&sb_lock);
>>>
>>> if (down_read_trylock(&sb->s_umount)) {
>>> - if (sb->s_root)
>>> + if (sb->s_frozen == SB_UNFROZEN && sb->s_root)
>>> return true;
>>> up_read(&sb->s_umount);
This seems like a very low-risk fix.
>> So this is something along the lines I thought but it actually won't work
>> for example if sync(1) is run while the filesystem is frozen (that takes
>> s_umount semaphore in a different place). And generally, I'm not convinced
>> there are not other places that try to do IO while holding s_umount
>> semaphore...
>
> OK. I understand.
>
> This code only fixes the case for the following path:
> writeback_inodes_wb
> -> ext4_da_writepages
> -> ext4_journal_start_sb
> -> vfs_check_frozen
> But, the code doesn't fix the other cases.
>
> We must modify the local filesystem part in order to fix all cases...?
It seems worthwhile to implement the low-risk fix that covers the common case, and if/when someone hits the rare 3-process case and/or submits a patch for it then that one will be fixed also.
Cheers, Andreas
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
