[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]
[linux-lvm] Re: [RFC] Reverting "bd_mount_mutex" to "bd_mount_sem"
- From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen sandeen net>
- To: Ingo Molnar <mingo elte hu>
- Cc: dm-devel redhat com, Srinivasa Ds <srinivasa in ibm com>, linux-kernel vger kernel org, agk redhat com, linux-lvm redhat com
- Subject: [linux-lvm] Re: [RFC] Reverting "bd_mount_mutex" to "bd_mount_sem"
- Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2006 15:50:12 -0500
Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Srinivasa Ds <srinivasa in ibm com> wrote:
>
>> On debugging I found out that,"dmsetup suspend <device name>" calls
>> "freeze_bdev()",which locks "bd_mount_mutex" to make sure that no new
>> mounts happen on bdev until thaw_bdev() is called.
>> This "thaw_bdev()" is getting called when we resume the device
>> through "dmsetup resume <device-name>".
>> Hence we have 2 processes,one of which locks
>> "bd_mount_mutex"(dmsetup suspend) and Another(dmsetup resume) unlocks
>> it.
>
> hm, to me this seems quite a fragile construct - even if the
> mutex-debugging warning is worked around by reverting to a semaphore.
>
> Ingo
Ingo, what do you feel is fragile about this? It seems like this is a
reasonable way to go, except that maybe a down_trylock would be good if
a 2nd process tries to freeze while it's already frozen...
Thanks,
-Eric
[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]