On Sat, 2013-08-31 at 19:00 +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 09:21:34AM -0700, Tim Chen wrote:
> >
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Tim Chen <tim.c.c...@linux.intel.com>
> > ---
> > diff --git a/fs/super.c b/fs/super.c
> > index 73d0952..4df1fab 100644
> > --- a/fs/super.c
> > +++ b/fs/super.c
> > @@ -112,9 +112,6 @@ static unsigned long super_cache_count(struct shrinker
> > *shrink,
> >
> > sb = container_of(shrink, struct super_block, s_shrink);
> >
> > - if (!grab_super_passive(sb))
> > - return 0;
> > -
>
> I think the function needs a comment explaining why we aren't
> grabbing the sb here, otherwise people are going to read the code
> and ask why it's different to the scanning callout.
>
> > if (sb->s_op && sb->s_op->nr_cached_objects)
> > total_objects = sb->s_op->nr_cached_objects(sb,
> > sc->nid);
>
Yes, those comments are needed.
I also need to remove the corresponding
drop_super(sb);
So probably something like:
---
diff --git a/fs/super.c b/fs/super.c
index 73d0952..7b5a6e5 100644
--- a/fs/super.c
+++ b/fs/super.c
@@ -112,9 +112,14 @@ static unsigned long super_cache_count(struct shrinker
*shrink,
sb = container_of(shrink, struct super_block, s_shrink);
- if (!grab_super_passive(sb))
- return 0;
-
+ /*
+ * Don't call grab_super_passive as it is a potential
+ * scalability bottleneck. The counts could get updated
+ * between super_cache_count and super_cache_scan anyway.
+ * Call to super_cache_count with shrinker_rwsem held
+ * ensures the safety of call to list_lru_count_node() and
+ * s_op->nr_cached_objects().
+ */
if (sb->s_op && sb->s_op->nr_cached_objects)
total_objects = sb->s_op->nr_cached_objects(sb,
sc->nid);
@@ -125,7 +130,6 @@ static unsigned long super_cache_count(struct shrinker
*shrink,
sc->nid);
total_objects = vfs_pressure_ratio(total_objects);
- drop_super(sb);
return total_objects;
}
> But seeing this triggered further thought on my part. Being called
> during unmount means that ->nr_cached_objects implementations need
> to be robust against unmount tearing down private filesystem
> structures. Right now, grab_super_passive() protects us from that
> because it won't be able to get the sb->s_umount lock while
> generic_shutdown_super() is doing it's work.
>
> IOWs, the superblock based shrinker operations are safe because the
> structures don't get torn down until after the shrinker is
> unregistered. That's not true for the structures that
> ->nr_cached_objects() use: ->put_super() tears them down before the
> shrinker is unregistered and only grab_super_passive() protects us
> from thay.
>
> Let me have a bit more of a think about this - the solution may
> simply be unregistering the shrinker before we call ->kill_sb() so
> the shrinker can't get called while we are tearing down the fs.
> First, though, I need to go back and remind myself of why I put that
> after ->kill_sb() in the first place.
Seems very reasonable as I haven't found a case where the shrinker
is touched in ->kill_sb() yet. It looks like unregistering the
shrinker before ->kill_sb() should be okay.
> If we unregister the shrinker
> before ->kill_sb is called, then we can probably get rid of
> grab_super_passive() in both shrinker callouts because they will no
> longer need to handle running concurrently with ->kill_sb()....
>
Thanks.
Tim
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
