On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 10:27 AM, Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu 19-01-17 21:03:12, Amir Goldstein wrote: >> On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 2:13 PM, Amir Goldstein <amir73il@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> I would be grateful if you guys could help me clarify something wrt >> freezefs vs. remount. >> I hope you may be able to enlighten me with just the information >> provided in this email >> without having to dive into overlayfs snapshot details. >> >> I implemented 'snapshot take' for overlayfs snapshots using a command like: >> mount -o remount,snapshot=/snap/N /mnt >> >> The 'snapshot take' moment from overlayfs writers perspective is when >> a single pointer >> is modified via rcu_assign_pointer(ufs->__snapmnt, snapmnt): >> >> https://github.com/amir73il/linux/commit/f0d6759efb7a6281ecc55dcdf33837568f71d29a >> >> I chose to use the remount_fs() API because it is convenient and make >> sense from user POV, but I could also use some IOCTL API for snapshot >> take. > > So I don't see why remounting makes sense for making snapshots. Remounting > is for manipulating mount options, not for instructing filesystem to make a > snapshot. I think using ioctl(2) for manipulation of snapshots like btrfs > does makes more sense (and it is also consistent with the existing > precedens of btrfs). > Yes, its true, but the way overlay snapshots work is by mounting and overlay with snapshot=<path> options which points to the mount point where files are CoWed to, so the remount API makes sense here. Anyway, I think what I'll do is use the remount as setup phase (prepare new snapshot target mount) and then use an ioctl for the activation of the new snapshot. That, or I could just check in ovl_freeze() if there is a new snapshot setup and assign it, as snapshot take is always going to be preceded by freeze anyway. >> For consistency of snapshot from application POV, I need to do: >> fsfreeze -f >> snapshot take >> fsfreeze -u >> >> But then I cannot use the remount_fs() API which requires that fs be unfrozen. >> >> Can you please explain why do_remount_sb() requires that fs be unfrozen? > > I think initially it was because we expected filesystem may need to modify > on-disk state to change mount options however that would get stuck since > the fs is frozen and thus deadlock would be created (you cannot thaw the > filesystem because the blocked process holds s_umount semaphore). Now also > thaw_super() relies on this as is behaves differently for RO and RW > filesystems. > >> Would it be possible to relax this requirement depending on remount flags? > > Yes, it would be possible although not trivial if you don't want to > introduce the above mentioned deadlock possibilities. And I don't see the > real need.. > I figures it was something like that. No I won't be able to justify making this sort of change. Thanks for explaining. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-unionfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
