Re: [RFC PATCH v2 14/14] dcache: Implement object migration

[Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>]

On Wed, Apr 03, 2019 at 06:19:21PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 03, 2019 at 06:08:11PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> 
> > Oh, *brilliant*
> > 
> > Let's do d_invalidate() on random dentries and hope they go away.
> > With convoluted and brittle logics for deciding which ones to
> > spare, which is actually wrong.  This will pick mountpoints
> > and tear them out, to start with.
> > 
> > NAKed-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
> > 
> > And this is a NAK for the entire approach; if it has a positive refcount,
> > LEAVE IT ALONE.  Period.  Don't play this kind of games, they are wrong.
> > d_invalidate() is not something that can be done to an arbitrary dentry.
> 
> PS: "try to evict what can be evicted out of this set" can be done, but
> you want something like
> 	start with empty list
> 	go through your array of references
> 		grab dentry->d_lock
> 		if dentry->d_lockref.count is not zero
> 			unlock and continue
> 		if dentry->d_flags & DCACHE_SHRINK_LIST
> 			ditto, it's not for us to play with
>                 if (dentry->d_flags & DCACHE_LRU_LIST)
>                         d_lru_del(dentry);
> 		d_shrink_add(dentry, &list);
> 		unlock
> 
> on the collection phase and
> 	if the list is not empty by the end of that loop
> 		shrink_dentry_list(&list);
> on the disposal.

Note, BTW, that your constructor is wrong - all it really needs to do
is spin_lock_init() and setting ->d_lockref.count same as lockref_mark_dead()
does, to match the state of dentries being torn down.

__d_alloc() is not holding ->d_lock, since the object is not visible to
anybody else yet; with your changes it *is* visible.  However, if the
assignment to ->d_lockref.count in __d_alloc() is guaranteed to be
non-zero to non-zero, the above should be safe.