From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <owner-linux-mm@kvack.org>
Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2018 19:34:45 +0100
From: Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com>,
	Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Paul McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
	Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@redhat.com>,
	Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
	Larry Woodman <lwoodman@redhat.com>,
	"Wangkai (Kevin,C)" <wangkai86@huawei.com>,
	linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 0/6] fs/dcache: Track & limit # of negative dentries
Message-ID: <20180714183445.GJ30522@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
References: <1530510723-24814-1-git-send-email-longman@redhat.com>
 <CA+55aFyH6dHw-7R3364dn32J4p7kxT=TqmnuozCn9_Bz-MHhxQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20180702141811.ef027fd7d8087b7fb2ba0cce@linux-foundation.org>
 <1530570880.3179.9.camel@HansenPartnership.com>
 <20180702161925.1c717283dd2bd4a221bc987c@linux-foundation.org>
 <20180703091821.oiywpdxd6rhtxl4p@quack2.suse.cz>
 <20180714173516.uumlhs4wgfgrlc32@devuan>
 <CA+55aFw1vrsTjJyoq4Q3jBwv1nXaTkkmSbHO6vozWZuTc7_6Kg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CA+55aFw1vrsTjJyoq4Q3jBwv1nXaTkkmSbHO6vozWZuTc7_6Kg@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org
List-ID: <linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org>

On Sat, Jul 14, 2018 at 11:00:32AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 14, 2018 at 10:35 AM Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz> wrote:
> >
> > Could we allocate -ve entries from separate slab?
> 
> No, because negative dentrires don't stay negative.
> 
> Every single positive dentry starts out as a negative dentry that is
> passed in to "lookup()" to maybe be made positive.
> 
> And most of the time they <i>do</i> turn positive, because most of the
> time people actually open files that exist.
> 
> But then occasionally you don't, because you're just blindly opening a
> filename whether it exists or not (to _check_ whether it's there).

BTW, one point that might not be realized by everyone: negative dentries
are *not* the hard case.
mount -t tmpfs none /mnt
touch /mnt/a
for i in `seq 100000`; do ln /mnt/a /mnt/$i; done

and you've got 100000 *unevictable* dentries, with the time per iteration
being not all that high (especially if you just call link(2) in a loop).
They are all positive and all pinned.  And you've got only one inode
there and no persistently opened files, so rlimit and quota won't help
any.