From: Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@gmail.com>
To: brauner@kernel.org
Cc: viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, jack@suse.cz,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@gmail.com>
Subject: [PATCH] fs: drop the lock trip around I_NEW wake up in evict()
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2025 17:07:07 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20250317160707.1694135-1-mjguzik@gmail.com> (raw)
The unhashed state check in __wait_on_freeing_inode() performed with
->i_lock held against remove_hash_inode() also holding the lock makes
another lock acquire in evict() completely spurious -- all potential
sleepers already dropped the lock before remove_hash_inode() acquired
it or they found the inode to be unhashed and aborted.
Note there is no trickery here: the usual cost of both sides taking
locks is still being paid, it just stops being paid twice.
Signed-off-by: Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@gmail.com>
---
fs/inode.c | 19 ++++++-------------
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/inode.c b/fs/inode.c
index 10121fc7b87e..4c3be44838a5 100644
--- a/fs/inode.c
+++ b/fs/inode.c
@@ -816,23 +816,16 @@ static void evict(struct inode *inode)
/*
* Wake up waiters in __wait_on_freeing_inode().
*
- * Lockless hash lookup may end up finding the inode before we removed
- * it above, but only lock it *after* we are done with the wakeup below.
- * In this case the potential waiter cannot safely block.
+ * It is an invariant that any thread we need to wake up is already
+ * accounted for before remove_inode_hash() acquires ->i_lock -- both
+ * sides take the lock and sleep is aborted if the inode is found
+ * unhashed. Thus either the sleeper wins and goes off CPU, or removal
+ * wins and the sleeper aborts after testing with the lock.
*
- * The inode being unhashed after the call to remove_inode_hash() is
- * used as an indicator whether blocking on it is safe.
+ * This also means we don't need any fences for the call below.
*/
- spin_lock(&inode->i_lock);
- /*
- * Pairs with the barrier in prepare_to_wait_event() to make sure
- * ___wait_var_event() either sees the bit cleared or
- * waitqueue_active() check in wake_up_var() sees the waiter.
- */
- smp_mb__after_spinlock();
inode_wake_up_bit(inode, __I_NEW);
BUG_ON(inode->i_state != (I_FREEING | I_CLEAR));
- spin_unlock(&inode->i_lock);
destroy_inode(inode);
}
--
2.43.0
reply other threads:[~2025-03-17 16:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: [no followups] expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed
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=20250317160707.1694135-1-mjguzik@gmail.com \
--to=mjguzik@gmail.com \
--cc=brauner@kernel.org \
--cc=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
/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