On Mon, Jun 12, 2023 at 11:33:02AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 11, 2023 at 09:01:48PM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Sun, Jun 11, 2023 at 08:15:28PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > > From: Darrick J. Wong <djwong@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > Jan Kara suggested that when one thread is in the middle of freezing a
> > > filesystem, another thread trying to freeze the same fs but with a
> > > different freeze_holder should wait until the freezer reaches either end
> > > state (UNFROZEN or COMPLETE) instead of returning EBUSY immediately.
> > >
> > > Plumb in the extra coded needed to wait for the fs freezer to reach an
> > > end state and try the freeze again.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Darrick J. Wong <djwong@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > fs/super.c | 27 +++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> > > 1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > >
> > >
> > > diff --git a/fs/super.c b/fs/super.c
> > > index 36adccecc828..151e0eeff2c2 100644
> > > --- a/fs/super.c
> > > +++ b/fs/super.c
> > > @@ -1647,6 +1647,15 @@ static int freeze_frozen_super(struct super_block *sb, enum freeze_holder who)
> > > return 0;
> > > }
> > >
> > > +static void wait_for_partially_frozen(struct super_block *sb)
> > > +{
> > > + up_write(&sb->s_umount);
> > > + wait_var_event(&sb->s_writers.frozen,
> > > + sb->s_writers.frozen == SB_UNFROZEN ||
> > > + sb->s_writers.frozen == SB_FREEZE_COMPLETE);
> > > + down_write(&sb->s_umount);
> >
> > Does sb->s_writers.frozen need WRITE_ONCE/READ_ONCE treatment if we want
> > to check it outside of s_umount? Or should we maybe just open code
> > wait_var_event and only drop the lock after checking the variable?
>
> How about something like:
>
> do {
> up_write(&sb->s_umount);
> down_write(&sb->s_umount);
> } while (sb->s_writers.frozen != SB_UNFROZEN &&
> sb->s_writers.frozen != SB_FREEZE_COMPLETE);
>
> so that we always return in either end state of a freezer transition?
Of course as soon as I hit send I realize that no, we don't want to be
cycling s_umount repeatedly even sb->s_writers.frozen hasn't changed.
And maybe we want the wait to be killable too?
static int wait_for_partially_frozen(struct super_block *sb)
{
int ret = 0;
do {
unsigned short old = sb->s_writers.frozen;
up_write(&sb->s_umount);
ret = wait_var_event_killable(&sb->s_writers.frozen,
sb->s_writers.frozen != old);
down_write(&sb->s_umount);
} while (ret == 0 &&
sb->s_writers.frozen != SB_UNFROZEN &&
sb->s_writers.frozen != SB_FREEZE_COMPLETE);
return ret;
}
I'll try this out and report back.
--D
> > > if (sb->s_writers.frozen != SB_UNFROZEN) {
> > > - deactivate_locked_super(sb);
> > > - return -EBUSY;
> > > + if (!try_again) {
> > > + deactivate_locked_super(sb);
> > > + return -EBUSY;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + wait_for_partially_frozen(sb);
> > > + try_again = false;
> > > + goto retry;
> >
> > Can you throw in a comment on wait we're only waiting for a partial
> > freeze one here?
>
> I didn't want a thread to get stuck in the retry forever if it always
> loses the race. However, I think any other threads running freeze_super
> will always end at UNFROZEN or COMPLETE; and thaw_super always goes
> straight froM COMPLETE to UNFROZEN, so I think I'll get rid of the retry
> flag logic entirely.
>
> --D
