linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>
To: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
Cc: Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-mm@kvack.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5 v2] superblock: introduce per-sb cache shrinker infrastructure
Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 16:46:31 +1000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100527064631.GK22536@laptop> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100527061751.GK12087@dastard>

On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 04:17:51PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 05:01:20AM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> > Um...  Maybe I'm dumb, but what's wrong with doing unregistration from
> > deactivate_locked_super(), right after the call of ->kill_sb()?  At that
> > point ->s_umount is already dropped, so we won't deadlock at all.
> > Shrinker rwsem will make sure that all shrinkers-in-progress will run
> > to completion, so we won't get a superblock freed under prune_super().
> > I don't particulary mind down_try_read() in prune_super(), but why not
> > make life obviously safer?
> > 
> > Am I missing something here?
> 
> I was worried about memory allocation in the ->kill_sb path
> deadlocking on the s_umount lock if it enters reclaim. e.g.  XFS
> inodes can still be dirty even after the VFS has disposed of them,
> and writing them back can require page cache allocation for the
> backing buffers. If allocation recurses back into the shrinker, we
> can deadlock on the s_umount lock.  This doesn't seem like an XFS
> specific problem, so I used a trylock to avoid that whole class of
> problems (same way the current shrinkers do).

If GFP_FS is set, we wouldn't touch the locks. It is a concern
though, if __GFP_FS allocations were previously permitted under
the exclusive lock.

 
> >From there, we can unregister the shrinker before calling ->kill_sb
> as per above. That, in turn, means that the unmount
> invalidate_inodes() vs shrinker race goes away and the iprune_sem is
> not needed in the new prune_icache_sb() function.  I'm pretty sure
> that I can now remove the iprune_sem, but I haven't written the
> patch to do that yet.

I do really like that aspect of your patch. It's nice to have the
shrinker always only operating against active supers. So I would
be in favour of your current scheme.


--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>

  reply	other threads:[~2010-05-27  6:46 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 38+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2010-05-25  8:53 [PATCH 0/5] Per superblock shrinkers V2 Dave Chinner
2010-05-25  8:53 ` [PATCH 1/5] inode: Make unused inode LRU per superblock Dave Chinner
2010-05-26 16:17   ` Nick Piggin
2010-05-26 23:01     ` Dave Chinner
2010-05-27  2:04       ` Nick Piggin
2010-05-27  4:02         ` Dave Chinner
2010-05-27  4:23           ` Nick Piggin
2010-05-27 20:32   ` Andrew Morton
2010-05-27 22:54     ` Dave Chinner
2010-05-28 10:07       ` Nick Piggin
2010-05-25  8:53 ` [PATCH 2/5] mm: add context argument to shrinker callback Dave Chinner
2010-05-25  8:53 ` [PATCH 3/5] superblock: introduce per-sb cache shrinker infrastructure Dave Chinner
2010-05-26 16:41   ` Nick Piggin
2010-05-26 23:12     ` Dave Chinner
2010-05-27  1:53       ` [PATCH 3/5 v2] " Dave Chinner
2010-05-27  4:01         ` Al Viro
2010-05-27  6:17           ` Dave Chinner
2010-05-27  6:46             ` Nick Piggin [this message]
2010-05-27  2:19       ` [PATCH 3/5] " Nick Piggin
2010-05-27  4:07         ` Dave Chinner
2010-05-27  4:24           ` Nick Piggin
2010-05-27  6:35   ` Nick Piggin
2010-05-27 22:40     ` Dave Chinner
2010-05-28  5:19       ` Nick Piggin
2010-05-31  6:39         ` Dave Chinner
2010-05-31  7:28           ` Nick Piggin
2010-05-27 20:32   ` Andrew Morton
2010-05-27 23:01     ` Dave Chinner
2010-05-25  8:53 ` [PATCH 4/5] superblock: add filesystem shrinker operations Dave Chinner
2010-05-27 20:32   ` Andrew Morton
2010-05-25  8:53 ` [PATCH 5/5] xfs: make use of new shrinker callout Dave Chinner
2010-05-26 16:44 ` [PATCH 0/5] Per superblock shrinkers V2 Nick Piggin
2010-05-27 20:32 ` Andrew Morton
2010-05-28  0:30   ` Dave Chinner
2010-05-28  7:42   ` Artem Bityutskiy
2010-07-02 12:13 ` Christoph Hellwig
2010-07-12  2:41   ` Dave Chinner
2010-07-12  2:52     ` Christoph Hellwig

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20100527064631.GK22536@laptop \
    --to=npiggin@suse.de \
    --cc=david@fromorbit.com \
    --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk \
    --cc=xfs@oss.sgi.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).