Re: [PATCH v4] fs/namespace: defer RCU sync for MNT_DETACH umount

Ian Kent
2025-04-11T02:37:09Z

On 10/4/25 21:58, Ian Kent wrote:
>
> On 10/4/25 00:04, Christian Brauner wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 09, 2025 at 04:25:10PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
>> wrote:
>>> On 2025-04-09 16:02:29 [+0200], Mateusz Guzik wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Apr 09, 2025 at 03:14:44PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> One question: Do we need this lazy/ MNT_DETACH case? Couldn't we
>>>>> handle
>>>>> them all via queue_rcu_work()?
>>>>> If so, couldn't we have make deferred_free_mounts global and have two
>>>>> release_list, say release_list and release_list_next_gp? The first
>>>>> one
>>>>> will be used if queue_rcu_work() returns true, otherwise the second.
>>>>> Then once defer_free_mounts() is done and release_list_next_gp not
>>>>> empty, it would move release_list_next_gp -> release_list and invoke
>>>>> queue_rcu_work().
>>>>> This would avoid the kmalloc, synchronize_rcu_expedited() and the
>>>>> special-sauce.
>>>>>
>>>> To my understanding it was preferred for non-lazy unmount consumers to
>>>> wait until the mntput before returning.
>>>>
>>>> That aside if I understood your approach it would de facto
>>>> serialize all
>>>> of these?
>>>>
>>>> As in with the posted patches you can have different worker threads
>>>> progress in parallel as they all get a private list to iterate.
>>>>
>>>> With your proposal only one can do any work.
>>>>
>>>> One has to assume with sufficient mount/unmount traffic this can
>>>> eventually get into trouble.
>>> Right, it would serialize them within the same worker thread. With one
>>> worker for each put you would schedule multiple worker from the RCU
>>> callback. Given the system_wq you will schedule them all on the CPU
>>> which invokes the RCU callback. This kind of serializes it, too.
>>>
>>> The mntput() callback uses spinlock_t for locking and then it frees
>>> resources. It does not look like it waits for something nor takes ages.
>>> So it might not be needed to split each put into its own worker on a
>>> different CPU… One busy bee might be enough ;)
>> Unmounting can trigger very large number of mounts to be unmounted. If
>> you're on a container heavy system or services that all propagate to
>> each other in different mount namespaces mount propagation will generate
>> a ton of umounts. So this cannot be underestimated.
>>
>> If a mount tree is wasted without MNT_DETACH it will pass UMOUNT_SYNC to
>> umount_tree(). That'll cause MNT_SYNC_UMOUNT to be raised on all mounts
>> during the unmount.
>>
>> If a concurrent path lookup calls legitimize_mnt() on such a mount and
>> sees that MNT_SYNC_UMOUNT is set it will discount as it know that the
>> concurrent unmounter hold the last reference and it __legitimize_mnt()
>> can thus simply drop the reference count. The final mntput() will be
>> done by the umounter.
>
> In umount_tree() it looks like the unmounted mount remains hashed (ie.
>
> disconnect_mount() returns false) so can't it still race with an rcu-walk
>
> regardless of the sybcronsize_rcu().
>
>
> Surely I'm missing something ...

Ans I am, please ignore this.

I miss-read the return of the mnt->mnt_parent->mnt.mnt_flags check in
disconnect_mount(),

my bad.

>
>
> Ian
>
>>
>> The synchronize_rcu() call in namespace_unlock() takes care that the
>> last mntput() doesn't happen until path walking has dropped out of RCU
>> mode.
>>
>> Without it it's possible that a non-MNT_DETACH umounter gets a spurious
>> EBUSY error because a concurrent lazy path walk will suddenly put the
>> last reference via mntput().
>>
>> I'm unclear how that's handled in whatever it is you're proposing.
>>
>