lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Jun]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH v3 14/15] dcache: Implement partial shrink via Slab Movable Objects
On Thu, Apr 11, 2019 at 10:02:00PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:

> Aaaarrgghhh... No, we can't. Look: we get one candidate dentry in isolate
> phase. We put it into shrink list. umount(2) comes and calls
> shrink_dcache_for_umount(), which calls shrink_dcache_parent(root).
> In the meanwhile, shrink_dentry_list() is run and does __dentry_kill() on
> that one dentry. Fine, it's gone - before shrink_dcache_parent() even
> sees it. Now shrink_dentry_list() holds a reference to its parent and
> is about to drop it in
> dentry = parent;
> while (dentry && !lockref_put_or_lock(&dentry->d_lockref))
> dentry = dentry_kill(dentry);
> And dropped it will be, but... shrink_dcache_parent() has finished the
> scan, without finding *anything* with zero refcount - the thing that used
> to be on the shrink list was already gone before shrink_dcache_parent()
> has gotten there and the reference to parent was not dropped yet. So
> shrink_dcache_for_umount() plows past shrink_dcache_parent(), walks the
> tree and complains loudly about "busy" dentries (that parent we hadn't
> finished dropping), and then we proceed with filesystem shutdown.
> In the meanwhile, dentry_kill() finally gets to killing dentry and
> triggers an unexpected late call of ->d_iput() on a filesystem that
> has already been far enough into shutdown - far enough to destroy the
> data structures needed for that sucker.
>
> The reason we don't hit that problem with regular memory shrinker is
> this:
> unregister_shrinker(&s->s_shrink);
> fs->kill_sb(s);
> in deactivate_locked_super(). IOW, shrinker for this fs is gone
> before we get around to shutdown. And so are all normal sources
> of dentry eviction for that fs.
>
> Your earlier variants all suffer the same problem - picking a page
> shared by dentries from several superblocks can run into trouble
> if it overlaps with umount of one of those.

FWIW, I think I see a kinda-sorta sane solution. Namely, add

static void __dput_to_list(struct dentry *dentry, struct list_head *list)
{
if (dentry->d_flags & DCACHE_SHRINK_LIST) {
/* let the owner of the list it's on deal with it */
--dentry->d_lockref.count;
} else {
if (dentry->d_flags & DCACHE_LRU_LIST)
d_lru_del(dentry);
if (!--dentry->d_lockref.count)
d_shrink_add(parent, list);
}
}

and have
shrink_dentry_list() do this in the end of loop:
d_shrink_del(dentry);
parent = dentry->d_parent;
/* both dentry and parent are locked at that point */
if (parent != dentry) {
/*
* We need to prune ancestors too. This is necessary to
* prevent quadratic behavior of shrink_dcache_parent(),
* but is also expected to be beneficial in reducing
* dentry cache fragmentation.
*/
__dput_to_list(parent, list);
}
__dentry_kill(dentry);
}

instead of
d_shrink_del(dentry);
parent = dentry->d_parent;
__dentry_kill(dentry);
if (parent == dentry)
continue;
/*
* We need to prune ancestors too. This is necessary to prevent
* quadratic behavior of shrink_dcache_parent(), but is also
* expected to be beneficial in reducing dentry cache
* fragmentation.
*/
dentry = parent;
while (dentry && !lockref_put_or_lock(&dentry->d_lockref))
dentry = dentry_kill(dentry);
}
we have there now. Linus, do you see any problems with that change? AFAICS,
that should avoid the problem described above. Moreover, it seems to allow
a fun API addition:

void dput_to_list(struct dentry *dentry, struct list_head *list)
{
rcu_read_lock();
if (likely(fast_dput(dentry))) {
rcu_read_unlock();
return;
}
rcu_read_unlock();
if (!retain_dentry(dentry))
__dput_to_list(dentry, list);
spin_unlock(&dentry->d_lock);
}

allowing to take an empty list, do a bunch of dput_to_list() (under spinlocks,
etc.), then, once we are in better locking conditions, shrink_dentry_list()
to take them all out. I can see applications for that in e.g. fs/namespace.c -
quite a bit of kludges with ->mnt_ex_mountpoint would be killable that way,
and there would be a chance to transfer the contribution to ->d_count of
mountpoint from struct mount to struct mountpoint (i.e. make any number of
mounts on the same mountpoint dentry contribute only 1 to its ->d_count,
not the number of such mounts).

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-06-29 06:10    [W:0.122 / U:9.056 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site