Re: [PATCH] btrfs: use appropriate replacements for __sb_{start,end}_write calls
On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 01:48:05PM +0300, Rakesh Pandit wrote:
> Commit a53f4f8e9c8eb ("btrfs: Don't call btrfs_start_transaction() on
> frozen fs to avoid deadlock.") started using internal calls and we
> replace them with more suitable ones.
>
> Signed-off-by: Rakesh Pandit
> ---
> fs/btrfs/super.c | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/super.c b/fs/btrfs/super.c
> index 35a128a..99c21ae 100644
> --- a/fs/btrfs/super.c
> +++ b/fs/btrfs/super.c
> @@ -1205,8 +1205,8 @@ int btrfs_sync_fs(struct super_block *sb, int wait)
>* happens. The pending operations are delayed to the
>* next commit after thawing.
>*/
> - if (__sb_start_write(sb, SB_FREEZE_WRITE, false))
> - __sb_end_write(sb, SB_FREEZE_WRITE);
> + if (sb_start_write_trylock(sb))
> + sb_end_write(sb)
CC [M] fs/btrfs/print-tree.o
fs/btrfs/super.c: In function ‘btrfs_sync_fs’:
fs/btrfs/super.c:1210:4: error: expected ‘;’ before ‘else’
else
^~~~
will be fixed.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH] btrfs: use appropriate replacements for __sb_{start,end}_write calls
On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 02:08:11PM +0300, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
>
>
> On 10.10.2017 13:48, Rakesh Pandit wrote:
> > Commit a53f4f8e9c8eb ("btrfs: Don't call btrfs_start_transaction() on
> > frozen fs to avoid deadlock.") started using internal calls and we
> > replace them with more suitable ones.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Rakesh Pandit
> > ---
> > fs/btrfs/super.c | 4 ++--
> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/btrfs/super.c b/fs/btrfs/super.c
> > index 35a128a..99c21ae 100644
> > --- a/fs/btrfs/super.c
> > +++ b/fs/btrfs/super.c
> > @@ -1205,8 +1205,8 @@ int btrfs_sync_fs(struct super_block *sb, int wait)
> > * happens. The pending operations are delayed to the
> > * next commit after thawing.
> > */
> > - if (__sb_start_write(sb, SB_FREEZE_WRITE, false))
> > - __sb_end_write(sb, SB_FREEZE_WRITE);
> > + if (sb_start_write_trylock(sb))
> > + sb_end_write(sb)
> > else
> > return 0;
>
> On second thought, what's to prevent the filesystem to be frozen if
> sb_start_write/sb_end_write code executes? Or even after we are in the
> middle of btrfs_start_transaction?
sb->s_writers.frozen is protected by sb->s_umount and s_umount is
held when ->sync_fs is called.
>
>
> > trans = btrfs_start_transaction(root, 0);
> >
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH] btrfs: use appropriate replacements for __sb_{start,end}_write calls
On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 02:00:20PM +0300, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
>
>
> On 10.10.2017 13:48, Rakesh Pandit wrote:
> > Commit a53f4f8e9c8eb ("btrfs: Don't call btrfs_start_transaction() on
> > frozen fs to avoid deadlock.") started using internal calls and we
> > replace them with more suitable ones.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Rakesh Pandit
> > ---
> > fs/btrfs/super.c | 4 ++--
> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/btrfs/super.c b/fs/btrfs/super.c
> > index 35a128a..99c21ae 100644
> > --- a/fs/btrfs/super.c
> > +++ b/fs/btrfs/super.c
> > @@ -1205,8 +1205,8 @@ int btrfs_sync_fs(struct super_block *sb, int wait)
> > * happens. The pending operations are delayed to the
> > * next commit after thawing.
> > */
> > - if (__sb_start_write(sb, SB_FREEZE_WRITE, false))
> > - __sb_end_write(sb, SB_FREEZE_WRITE);
> > + if (sb_start_write_trylock(sb))
> > + sb_end_write(sb)
> > else
> > return 0;
> > trans = btrfs_start_transaction(root, 0);
>
> The non __ versions are just wrappers around the __ specific calls. So
> the code is identical.
>
> Reviewed-by: Nikolay Borisov
>
Thanks, yes indeed.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH] btrfs: use appropriate replacements for __sb_{start,end}_write calls
On 10.10.2017 13:48, Rakesh Pandit wrote:
> Commit a53f4f8e9c8eb ("btrfs: Don't call btrfs_start_transaction() on
> frozen fs to avoid deadlock.") started using internal calls and we
> replace them with more suitable ones.
>
> Signed-off-by: Rakesh Pandit
> ---
> fs/btrfs/super.c | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/super.c b/fs/btrfs/super.c
> index 35a128a..99c21ae 100644
> --- a/fs/btrfs/super.c
> +++ b/fs/btrfs/super.c
> @@ -1205,8 +1205,8 @@ int btrfs_sync_fs(struct super_block *sb, int wait)
>* happens. The pending operations are delayed to the
>* next commit after thawing.
>*/
> - if (__sb_start_write(sb, SB_FREEZE_WRITE, false))
> - __sb_end_write(sb, SB_FREEZE_WRITE);
> + if (sb_start_write_trylock(sb))
> + sb_end_write(sb)
> else
> return 0;
On second thought, what's to prevent the filesystem to be frozen if
sb_start_write/sb_end_write code executes? Or even after we are in the
middle of btrfs_start_transaction?
> trans = btrfs_start_transaction(root, 0);
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH] btrfs: use appropriate replacements for __sb_{start,end}_write calls
On 10.10.2017 13:48, Rakesh Pandit wrote:
> Commit a53f4f8e9c8eb ("btrfs: Don't call btrfs_start_transaction() on
> frozen fs to avoid deadlock.") started using internal calls and we
> replace them with more suitable ones.
>
> Signed-off-by: Rakesh Pandit
> ---
> fs/btrfs/super.c | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/super.c b/fs/btrfs/super.c
> index 35a128a..99c21ae 100644
> --- a/fs/btrfs/super.c
> +++ b/fs/btrfs/super.c
> @@ -1205,8 +1205,8 @@ int btrfs_sync_fs(struct super_block *sb, int wait)
>* happens. The pending operations are delayed to the
>* next commit after thawing.
>*/
> - if (__sb_start_write(sb, SB_FREEZE_WRITE, false))
> - __sb_end_write(sb, SB_FREEZE_WRITE);
> + if (sb_start_write_trylock(sb))
> + sb_end_write(sb)
> else
> return 0;
> trans = btrfs_start_transaction(root, 0);
The non __ versions are just wrappers around the __ specific calls. So
the code is identical.
Reviewed-by: Nikolay Borisov
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
[PATCH] btrfs: use appropriate replacements for __sb_{start,end}_write calls
Commit a53f4f8e9c8eb ("btrfs: Don't call btrfs_start_transaction() on
frozen fs to avoid deadlock.") started using internal calls and we
replace them with more suitable ones.
Signed-off-by: Rakesh Pandit
---
fs/btrfs/super.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/super.c b/fs/btrfs/super.c
index 35a128a..99c21ae 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/super.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/super.c
@@ -1205,8 +1205,8 @@ int btrfs_sync_fs(struct super_block *sb, int wait)
* happens. The pending operations are delayed to the
* next commit after thawing.
*/
- if (__sb_start_write(sb, SB_FREEZE_WRITE, false))
- __sb_end_write(sb, SB_FREEZE_WRITE);
+ if (sb_start_write_trylock(sb))
+ sb_end_write(sb)
else
return 0;
trans = btrfs_start_transaction(root, 0);
--
2.5.5
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
