[RFC PATCH 0/2] On-demand Filesystem Initialisation

[RFC PATCH 0/2] On-demand Filesystem Initialisation

[Tom Spink]

(resend to include CCs)

This (short) patch series is another RFC for the patch that introduces on-demand
filesystem initialisation.  In addition to the original infrastructure
implementation (with clean-ups), it changes XFS to use this new infrastructure.

I wrote a toy filesystem (testfs) to simulate scheduling/allocation delays and
to torture the mount/unmount cycles.  I didn't manage to deadlock the system
in my tests.  XFS also works as expected aswell, in that the global threads
are not created until an XFS filesystem is mounted for the first time.  When the
last XFS filesystem is unmounted, the threads go away.

Please let me know what you think!

-- Tom

fs/filesystems.c             |    2 +
fs/super.c                   |   47 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_super.c |   55 +++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------
include/linux/fs.h           |    3 ++
4 files changed, 81 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-)

[RFC PATCH 1/2] vfs: Introduce on-demand filesystem initialisation

[Tom Spink]

This patch adds on-demand filesystem initialisation capabilities to the VFS,
whereby an init routine will be executed on first use of a particular
filesystem type.  Also, an exit routine will be executed when the last
superblock of a filesystem type is deactivated.

This is useful for filesystems that share global resources between all
instances of the filesystem, but only need those resources when there are
any users of the filesystem.  This lets the filesystem initialise those
resources (kernel threads or caches, say) when the first superblock is
created.  It also lets the filesystem clean up those resources when the
last superblock is deactivated.

Signed-off-by: Tom Spink <tspink@gmail.com>
---
 fs/filesystems.c   |    2 ++
 fs/super.c         |   47 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
 include/linux/fs.h |    3 +++
 3 files changed, 51 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)

diff --git a/fs/filesystems.c b/fs/filesystems.c
index f37f872..59b2eaa 100644
--- a/fs/filesystems.c
+++ b/fs/filesystems.c
@@ -79,6 +79,7 @@ int register_filesystem(struct file_system_type * fs)
 		res = -EBUSY;
 	else
 		*p = fs;
+	mutex_init(&fs->fs_supers_lock);
 	write_unlock(&file_systems_lock);
 	return res;
 }
@@ -105,6 +106,7 @@ int unregister_filesystem(struct file_system_type * fs)
 	tmp = &file_systems;
 	while (*tmp) {
 		if (fs == *tmp) {
+			mutex_destroy(&fs->fs_supers_lock);
 			*tmp = fs->next;
 			fs->next = NULL;
 			write_unlock(&file_systems_lock);
diff --git a/fs/super.c b/fs/super.c
index 453877c..af20175 100644
--- a/fs/super.c
+++ b/fs/super.c
@@ -181,7 +181,21 @@ void deactivate_super(struct super_block *s)
 		spin_unlock(&sb_lock);
 		DQUOT_OFF(s, 0);
 		down_write(&s->s_umount);
+
+		/* Take the mutex before calling kill_sb, because it may
+		 * modify the fs_supers list.
+		 */
+		mutex_lock(&fs->fs_supers_lock);
 		fs->kill_sb(s);
+
+		/* Check to see if this is the last superblock of the
+		 * filesystem going down, and if it is, then run the exit
+		 * routine.
+		 */
+		if (list_empty(&fs->fs_supers) && fs->exit)
+			fs->exit();
+		mutex_unlock(&fs->fs_supers_lock);
+
 		put_filesystem(fs);
 		put_super(s);
 	}
@@ -338,6 +352,7 @@ struct super_block *sget(struct file_system_type *type,
 	struct super_block *old;
 	int err;
 
+	mutex_lock(&type->fs_supers_lock);
 retry:
 	spin_lock(&sb_lock);
 	if (test) {
@@ -348,14 +363,17 @@ retry:
 				goto retry;
 			if (s)
 				destroy_super(s);
+			mutex_unlock(&type->fs_supers_lock);
 			return old;
 		}
 	}
 	if (!s) {
 		spin_unlock(&sb_lock);
 		s = alloc_super(type);
-		if (!s)
+		if (!s) {
+			mutex_unlock(&type->fs_supers_lock);
 			return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
+		}
 		goto retry;
 	}
 		
@@ -363,14 +381,41 @@ retry:
 	if (err) {
 		spin_unlock(&sb_lock);
 		destroy_super(s);
+		mutex_unlock(&type->fs_supers_lock);
 		return ERR_PTR(err);
 	}
+
+	/* If this is the first superblock of this particular filesystem,
+	 * run the init routine, if any.  If we're going to do this, then we
+	 * also need to drop the sb_lock spinlock.
+	 */
+	if (list_empty(&type->fs_supers) && type->init) {
+		spin_unlock(&sb_lock);
+
+		/* We can do this, because we're holding the fs_supers_lock
+		 * mutex.
+		 */
+		err = type->init();
+		if (err < 0) {
+			/* If the filesystem failed to initialise, then back
+			 * out, destroy the superblock and return the error.
+			 */
+			destroy_super(s);
+			mutex_unlock(&type->fs_supers_lock);
+			return ERR_PTR(err);
+		}
+
+		spin_lock(&sb_lock);
+	}
+
 	s->s_type = type;
 	strlcpy(s->s_id, type->name, sizeof(s->s_id));
 	list_add_tail(&s->s_list, &super_blocks);
 	list_add(&s->s_instances, &type->fs_supers);
 	spin_unlock(&sb_lock);
 	get_filesystem(type);
+
+	mutex_unlock(&type->fs_supers_lock);
 	return s;
 }
 
diff --git a/include/linux/fs.h b/include/linux/fs.h
index f413085..92d446f 100644
--- a/include/linux/fs.h
+++ b/include/linux/fs.h
@@ -1477,8 +1477,11 @@ struct file_system_type {
 	int (*get_sb) (struct file_system_type *, int,
 		       const char *, void *, struct vfsmount *);
 	void (*kill_sb) (struct super_block *);
+	int (*init) (void);
+	void (*exit) (void);
 	struct module *owner;
 	struct file_system_type * next;
+	struct mutex fs_supers_lock;
 	struct list_head fs_supers;
 
 	struct lock_class_key s_lock_key;
-- 
1.5.4.3

[RFC PATCH 2/2] xfs: Make XFS use the new file system init infrastructure

[Tom Spink]

This patch makes XFS use the file system type specific init and exit
callbacks, so that XFS only initialises when it's used for the first
time.

This is useful for when XFS is compiled into the kernel, but never
actually used as it stops XFS from creating global threads, until
they are needed.

Signed-off-by: Tom Spink <tspink@gmail.com>
---
 fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_super.c |   55 +++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------
 1 files changed, 30 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)

diff --git a/fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_super.c b/fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_super.c
index 742b2c7..3e7340a 100644
--- a/fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_super.c
+++ b/fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_super.c
@@ -1422,23 +1422,9 @@ static struct quotactl_ops xfs_quotactl_operations = {
 	.set_xquota		= xfs_fs_setxquota,
 };
 
-static struct file_system_type xfs_fs_type = {
-	.owner			= THIS_MODULE,
-	.name			= "xfs",
-	.get_sb			= xfs_fs_get_sb,
-	.kill_sb		= kill_block_super,
-	.fs_flags		= FS_REQUIRES_DEV,
-};
-
-
-STATIC int __init
-init_xfs_fs( void )
+static int xfs_fs_init(void)
 {
-	int			error;
-	static char		message[] __initdata = KERN_INFO \
-		XFS_VERSION_STRING " with " XFS_BUILD_OPTIONS " enabled\n";
-
-	printk(message);
+	int error;
 
 	ktrace_init(64);
 
@@ -1455,14 +1441,8 @@ init_xfs_fs( void )
 	uuid_init();
 	vfs_initquota();
 
-	error = register_filesystem(&xfs_fs_type);
-	if (error)
-		goto undo_register;
 	return 0;
 
-undo_register:
-	xfs_buf_terminate();
-
 undo_buffers:
 	xfs_destroy_zones();
 
@@ -1470,17 +1450,42 @@ undo_zones:
 	return error;
 }
 
-STATIC void __exit
-exit_xfs_fs( void )
+static void xfs_fs_exit(void)
 {
 	vfs_exitquota();
-	unregister_filesystem(&xfs_fs_type);
 	xfs_cleanup();
 	xfs_buf_terminate();
 	xfs_destroy_zones();
 	ktrace_uninit();
 }
 
+static struct file_system_type xfs_fs_type = {
+	.owner			= THIS_MODULE,
+	.name			= "xfs",
+	.get_sb			= xfs_fs_get_sb,
+	.kill_sb		= kill_block_super,
+	.fs_flags		= FS_REQUIRES_DEV,
+	.init			= xfs_fs_init,
+	.exit			= xfs_fs_exit,
+};
+
+
+STATIC int __init
+init_xfs_fs( void )
+{
+	static char		message[] __initdata = KERN_INFO \
+		XFS_VERSION_STRING " with " XFS_BUILD_OPTIONS " enabled\n";
+
+	printk(message);
+	return register_filesystem(&xfs_fs_type);
+}
+
+STATIC void __exit
+exit_xfs_fs( void )
+{
+	unregister_filesystem(&xfs_fs_type);
+}
+
 module_init(init_xfs_fs);
 module_exit(exit_xfs_fs);
 
-- 
1.5.4.3

Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] vfs: Introduce on-demand filesystem initialisation

[Al Viro]

On Sun, Jun 01, 2008 at 03:51:54PM +0100, Tom Spink wrote:


Occam's Razor...

You've just serialized ->kill_sb() for given fs type (and made sure that
if one gets stuck, _everything_ gets stuck).  Moreover, you've serialized
sget() against the same thing (i.e. pretty much each ->get_sb()).

All of that (and a couple of new methods) is done for something that just
plain does not belong to VFS.  It's trivially doable in filesystem *and*
it's about the objects with lifetimes that make sense only for filesystem
itself.

Hell, just do

int want_xfs_threads(void)
{
	int res = 0;
	mutex_lock(&foo_lock);
	if (!count++) {
		start threads
		if failed {
			count--;
			res = -Esomething;
		}
	}
	mutex_unlock(&foo_lock);
	return res;
}

void leave_xfs_threads(void)
{
	mutex_lock(&foo_lock);
	if (!--count)
		stop threads
	mutex_unlock(&foo_lock);
}

Call want_xfs_threads() in xfs_fs_fill_super(); call leave_xfs_threads() in
the end of xfs_put_super() and on failure exit from xfs_fs_fill_super().
End of story...  Any other fs that wants such things can do the same.

Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] vfs: Introduce on-demand filesystem initialisation

[Tom Spink]

2008/6/1 Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>:
> On Sun, Jun 01, 2008 at 03:51:54PM +0100, Tom Spink wrote:
>
>
> Occam's Razor...
>
> You've just serialized ->kill_sb() for given fs type (and made sure that
> if one gets stuck, _everything_ gets stuck).  Moreover, you've serialized
> sget() against the same thing (i.e. pretty much each ->get_sb()).
>
> All of that (and a couple of new methods) is done for something that just
> plain does not belong to VFS.  It's trivially doable in filesystem *and*
> it's about the objects with lifetimes that make sense only for filesystem
> itself.

Okay!  Thanks for reviewing, anyway. :-)

-- 
Tom Spink

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] On-demand Filesystem Initialisation

[Dave Chinner]

On Sun, Jun 01, 2008 at 03:51:53PM +0100, Tom Spink wrote:
> 
> (resend to include CCs)

What cc's? Still no xfs cc on it. I added it to this reply....

> This (short) patch series is another RFC for the patch that introduces on-demand
> filesystem initialisation.  In addition to the original infrastructure
> implementation (with clean-ups), it changes XFS to use this new infrastructure.
> 
> I wrote a toy filesystem (testfs) to simulate scheduling/allocation delays and
> to torture the mount/unmount cycles.  I didn't manage to deadlock the system
> in my tests.  XFS also works as expected aswell, in that the global threads
> are not created until an XFS filesystem is mounted for the first time.  When the
> last XFS filesystem is unmounted, the threads go away.
> 
> Please let me know what you think!

Why even bother? This is why we have /modular/ kernels - if you're
not using XFS then don't load it and you won't see those pesky
threads. That'll save on a bunch of memory as well because the xfs
module ain't small (>480k on i386)....

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] On-demand Filesystem Initialisation

[Tom Spink]

2008/6/2 Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>:
> On Sun, Jun 01, 2008 at 03:51:53PM +0100, Tom Spink wrote:
>>
>> (resend to include CCs)
>
> What cc's? Still no xfs cc on it. I added it to this reply....
>
>> This (short) patch series is another RFC for the patch that introduces on-demand
>> filesystem initialisation.  In addition to the original infrastructure
>> implementation (with clean-ups), it changes XFS to use this new infrastructure.
>>
>> I wrote a toy filesystem (testfs) to simulate scheduling/allocation delays and
>> to torture the mount/unmount cycles.  I didn't manage to deadlock the system
>> in my tests.  XFS also works as expected aswell, in that the global threads
>> are not created until an XFS filesystem is mounted for the first time.  When the
>> last XFS filesystem is unmounted, the threads go away.
>>
>> Please let me know what you think!
>
> Why even bother? This is why we have /modular/ kernels - if you're
> not using XFS then don't load it and you won't see those pesky
> threads. That'll save on a bunch of memory as well because the xfs
> module ain't small (>480k on i386)....

Yeah, absolutely.  But if the filesystem is built-in, you can't unload it.

> Cheers,
>
> Dave.

Thanks for taking a look, anyway!

-- 
Tom Spink