xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: bd_mount_mutex -> bd_mount_sem (was Re: xfs_file_ioctl / xfs_freeze:

To: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: bd_mount_mutex -> bd_mount_sem (was Re: xfs_file_ioctl / xfs_freeze: BUG: warning at kernel/mutex-debug.c:80/debug_mutex_unlock())
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2007 19:51:27 -0800
Cc: David Chinner <dgc@xxxxxxx>, linux-kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <45A30E1D.4030401@xxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <20070104001420.GA32440@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20070107213734.GS44411608@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20070108110323.GA3803@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <45A27416.8030600@xxxxxxxxxxx> <20070108234728.GC33919298@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20070108161917.73a4c2c6.akpm@xxxxxxxx> <45A30828.6000508@xxxxxxxxxxx> <20070108191800.9d83ff5e.akpm@xxxxxxxx> <45A30E1D.4030401@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Mon, 08 Jan 2007 21:38:05 -0600
Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Mon, 08 Jan 2007 21:12:40 -0600
> > Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 
> >> Andrew Morton wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 9 Jan 2007 10:47:28 +1100
> >>> David Chinner <dgc@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On Mon, Jan 08, 2007 at 10:40:54AM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> >>>>> Sami Farin wrote:
> >>>>>> On Mon, Jan 08, 2007 at 08:37:34 +1100, David Chinner wrote:
> >>>>>> ...
> >>>>>>>> fstab was there just fine after -u.
> >>>>>>> Oh, that still hasn't been fixed?
> >>>>>> Looked like it =)
> >>>>> Hm, it was proposed upstream a while ago:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/9/27/137
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I guess it got lost?
> >>>> Seems like it. Andrew, did this ever get queued for merge?
> >>> Seems not.  I think people were hoping that various nasties in there
> >>> would go away.  We return to userspace with a kernel lock held??
> >> Is a semaphore any worse than the current mutex in this respect?  At 
> >> least unlocking from another thread doesn't violate semaphore rules.  :)
> > 
> > I assume that if we weren't returning to userspace with a lock held, this
> > mutex problem would simply go away.
> > 
> 
> Well nobody's asserting that the filesystem must always be locked & 
> unlocked by the same thread, are they?  That'd be a strange rule to 
> enforce upon the userspace doing the filesystem management wouldn't it? 
>   Or am I thinking about this wrong...

I don't even know what code we're talking about here...

I'm under the impression that XFS will return to userspace with a
filesystem lock held, under the expectation (ie: requirement) that
userspace will later come in and release that lock.

If that's not true, then what _is_ happening in there?

If that _is_ true then, well, that sucks a bit.


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>