On 06/23/2016 05:47 AM, Chris Mason wrote:
On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 6:18 AM, Anand Jain <anand.j...@oracle.com> wrote:
Thanks for the review Chris.
On 06/21/2016 09:00 PM, Chris Mason wrote:
On 06/21/2016 06:24 AM, Anand Jain wrote:
From: Anand Jain <anand.j...@oracle.com>
Further to the commit
bc178622d40d87e75abc131007342429c9b03351
btrfs: use rcu_barrier() to wait for bdev puts at unmount
This patch implements a method to time wait on the __free_device()
which actually does the bdev put. This is needed as the user space
running 'btrfs fi show -d' immediately after the replace and
unmount, is still reading older information from the device.
Thanks for working on this Anand. Since it looks like blkdev_put can
deadlock against us, can we please switch to making sure we fully flush
the outstanding IO? It's probably enough to do a sync_blockdev() call
before we allow the unmount to finish, but we can toss in an
invalidate_bdev for good measure.
------------
# git diff
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
index 604daf315669..e0ad29d6fe9a 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
@@ -870,6 +870,11 @@ static void btrfs_close_one_device(struct
btrfs_device *device)
if (device->missing)
fs_devices->missing_devices--;
+ if (device->bdev && device->writeable) {
+ sync_blockdev(device->bdev);
+ invalidate_bdev(device->bdev);
+ }
+
new_device = btrfs_alloc_device(NULL, &device->devid,
device->uuid);
BUG_ON(IS_ERR(new_device)); /* -ENOMEM */
-----------
However, theoretically still there might be a problem - at the end of
unmount, if the device exclusive open is not actually closed, then
there might be a race with another program which is trying to open
the device in exclusive mode. Like for eg:
unmount /btrfs; fsck /dev/X
and here fsck might fail to open the device if it wins the race.
This true, but at least we know he'll have up to date buffers if he does
manage to open the device.
With the generic code, the blkdev_put happens after the super is gone,
so I'm not sure we can completely fix this from inside our callback.
Makes sense, sent out v3 with title
(btrfs: make sure device is synced before return)
Also sent out RFC patch
btrfs: make sure device is synced before return
where I have tried not to background blkdev_put(),
which seems to be better, it works fine per fstests.
Thanks, Anand
-chris
--
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
