From: Chuck Lever III <chuck.lever@oracle.com>
To: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
Cc: Neil Brown <neilb@suse.de>,
Linux NFS Mailing List <linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/4] nfsd: close race between unhashing and LRU addition
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2022 13:14:47 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <202AD086-4F1F-41D6-ABDC-BA6C91DA5BBF@oracle.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <fb57d2cb6769dbc123e15e76ec2c23b1fa9f32be.camel@kernel.org>
> On Oct 31, 2022, at 6:08 AM, Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2022-10-31 at 02:51 +0000, Chuck Lever III wrote:
>>
>>> On Oct 30, 2022, at 5:45 PM, NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sat, 29 Oct 2022, Chuck Lever III wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Oct 28, 2022, at 2:57 PM, Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> The list_lru_add and list_lru_del functions use list_empty checks to see
>>>>> whether the object is already on the LRU. That's fine in most cases, but
>>>>> we occasionally repurpose nf_lru after unhashing. It's possible for an
>>>>> LRU removal to remove it from a different list altogether if we lose a
>>>>> race.
>>
>> Can that issue be resolved by simply adding a "struct list_head nf_dispose"
>> field? That might be more straightforward than adding conditional logic.
>>
>
> Yes, though that would take more memory.
Not really. pahole says struct nfsd_file is currently 40 bytes short
of two cache lines. So adding a list_head field should not push the
size of nfsd_file to the point where kmalloc would have to allocate
more memory per object.
I'm wondering if a separate list_head field would help simplify
nfsd_file_put() ?
--
Chuck Lever
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-10-31 13:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-10-28 18:57 [PATCH v3 0/4] nfsd: clean up refcounting in the filecache Jeff Layton
2022-10-28 18:57 ` [PATCH v3 1/4] nfsd: remove the pages_flushed statistic from filecache Jeff Layton
2022-10-28 19:41 ` Chuck Lever III
2022-10-28 18:57 ` [PATCH v3 2/4] nfsd: rework refcounting in filecache Jeff Layton
2022-10-28 19:49 ` Chuck Lever III
2022-10-28 20:13 ` Jeff Layton
2022-10-28 20:39 ` Chuck Lever III
2022-10-28 21:03 ` Jeff Layton
2022-10-28 21:23 ` Chuck Lever III
2022-10-31 9:40 ` Jeff Layton
2022-11-01 13:58 ` Chuck Lever III
2022-11-01 14:19 ` Jeff Layton
2022-10-28 18:57 ` [PATCH v3 3/4] nfsd: close race between unhashing and LRU addition Jeff Layton
2022-10-28 19:50 ` Chuck Lever III
2022-10-28 20:04 ` Jeff Layton
2022-10-30 21:45 ` NeilBrown
2022-10-31 2:51 ` Chuck Lever III
2022-10-31 10:08 ` Jeff Layton
2022-10-31 13:14 ` Chuck Lever III [this message]
2022-10-31 13:28 ` Jeff Layton
2022-10-31 10:01 ` Jeff Layton
2022-10-28 18:57 ` [PATCH v3 4/4] nfsd: start non-blocking writeback after adding nfsd_file to the LRU Jeff Layton
2022-10-28 19:50 ` Chuck Lever III
2022-10-28 20:30 ` Jeff Layton
2022-10-28 20:57 ` Chuck Lever III
2022-10-31 9:36 ` Jeff Layton
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=202AD086-4F1F-41D6-ABDC-BA6C91DA5BBF@oracle.com \
--to=chuck.lever@oracle.com \
--cc=jlayton@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=neilb@suse.de \
/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