From: Brian Foster <bfoster@redhat.com>
To: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
Cc: linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 28/28] xfs: rework unreferenced inode lookups
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2019 07:42:24 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20191120124224.GA15542@bfoster> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20191119211834.GA4614@dread.disaster.area>
On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 08:18:34AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 10:13:44AM -0500, Brian Foster wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 12:00:47PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 12:26:00PM -0500, Brian Foster wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 09:16:02AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, Nov 06, 2019 at 05:18:46PM -0500, Brian Foster wrote:
> > > > > If so, most of this patch will go away....
> > > > >
> > > > > > > + * attached to the buffer so we don't need to do anything more here.
> > > > > > > */
> > > > > > > - if (ip != free_ip) {
> > > > > > > - if (!xfs_ilock_nowait(ip, XFS_ILOCK_EXCL)) {
> > > > > > > - rcu_read_unlock();
> > > > > > > - delay(1);
> > > > > > > - goto retry;
> > > > > > > - }
> > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > - /*
> > > > > > > - * Check the inode number again in case we're racing with
> > > > > > > - * freeing in xfs_reclaim_inode(). See the comments in that
> > > > > > > - * function for more information as to why the initial check is
> > > > > > > - * not sufficient.
> > > > > > > - */
> > > > > > > - if (ip->i_ino != inum) {
> > > > > > > + if (__xfs_iflags_test(ip, XFS_ISTALE)) {
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Is there a correctness reason for why we move the stale check to under
> > > > > > ilock (in both iflush/ifree)?
> > > > >
> > > > > It's under the i_flags_lock, and so I moved it up under the lookup
> > > > > hold of the i_flags_lock so we don't need to cycle it again.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Yeah, but in both cases it looks like it moved to under the ilock as
> > > > well, which comes after i_flags_lock. IOW, why grab ilock for stale
> > > > inodes when we're just going to skip them?
> > >
> > > Because I was worrying about serialising against reclaim before
> > > changing the state of the inode. i.e. if the inode has already been
> > > isolated by not yet disposed of, we shouldn't touch the inode state
> > > at all. Serialisation against reclaim in this patch is via the
> > > ILOCK, hence we need to do that before setting ISTALE....
> > >
> >
> > Yeah, I think my question still isn't clear... I'm not talking about
> > setting ISTALE. The code I referenced above is where we test for it and
> > skip the inode if it is already set. For example, the code referenced
> > above in xfs_ifree_get_one_inode() currently does the following with
> > respect to i_flags_lock, ILOCK and XFS_ISTALE:
> >
> > ...
> > spin_lock(i_flags_lock)
> > xfs_ilock_nowait(XFS_ILOCK_EXCL)
> > if !XFS_ISTALE
> > skip
> > set XFS_ISTALE
> > ...
>
> There is another place in xfs_ifree_cluster that sets ISTALE without
> the ILOCK held, so the ILOCK is being used here for a different
> purpose...
>
> > The reclaim isolate code does this, however:
> >
> > spin_trylock(i_flags_lock)
> > if !XFS_ISTALE
> > skip
> > xfs_ilock(XFS_ILOCK_EXCL)
> > ...
>
> Which is fine, because we're not trying to avoid racing with reclaim
> here. :) i.e. all we need is the i_flags lock to check the ISTALE
> flag safely.
>
> > So my question is why not do something like the following in the
> > _get_one_inode() case?
> >
> > ...
> > spin_lock(i_flags_lock)
> > if !XFS_ISTALE
> > skip
> > xfs_ilock_nowait(XFS_ILOCK_EXCL)
> > set XFS_ISTALE
> > ...
>
> Because, like I said, I focussed on the lookup racing with reclaim
> first. The above code could be used, but it puts object internal
> state checks before we really know whether the object is safe to
> access and whether we can trust it.
>
> I'm just following a basic RCU/lockless lookup principle here:
> don't try to use object state before you've fully validated that the
> object is live and guaranteed that it can be safely referenced.
>
> > IOW, what is the need, if any, to acquire ilock in the iflush/ifree
> > paths before testing for XFS_ISTALE? Is there some specific intermediate
> > state I'm missing or is this just unintentional?
>
> It's entirely intentional - validate and claim the object we've
> found in the lockless lookup, then run the code that checks/changes
> the object state. Smashing state checks and lockless lookup
> validation together is a nasty landmine to leave behind...
>
Ok, so this is intentional, but the purpose is simplification vs.
technically being part of the lookup dance. I'm not sure I see the
advantage given that IMO this trades off one landmine for another, but
I'm not worried that much about it as long as the code is correct.
I guess we'll see how things change after reevaluation of the whole
holding ilock across contexts behavior, but if we do end up with a
similar pattern in the iflush/ifree paths please document that
explicitly in the comments. Otherwise in a patch that swizzles this code
around and explicitly plays games with ilock, the intent of this
particular change is not clear to somebody reading the code IMO. In
fact, I think it might be interesting to see if we could define a couple
helpers (located closer to the reclaim code) to perform an unreferenced
lookup/release of an inode, but that is secondary to nailing down the
fundamental rules.
Brian
> Cheers,
>
> Dave.
> --
> Dave Chinner
> david@fromorbit.com
>
prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-11-20 12:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 72+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-10-31 23:45 [PATCH 00/28] mm, xfs: non-blocking inode reclaim Dave Chinner
2019-10-31 23:45 ` [PATCH 01/28] xfs: Lower CIL flush limit for large logs Dave Chinner
2019-10-31 23:45 ` [PATCH 02/28] xfs: Throttle commits on delayed background CIL push Dave Chinner
2019-11-01 12:04 ` Brian Foster
2019-11-01 21:40 ` Dave Chinner
2019-11-04 22:48 ` Darrick J. Wong
2019-10-31 23:45 ` [PATCH 03/28] xfs: don't allow log IO to be throttled Dave Chinner
2019-10-31 23:45 ` [PATCH 04/28] xfs: Improve metadata buffer reclaim accountability Dave Chinner
2019-11-01 12:05 ` Brian Foster
2019-11-04 23:21 ` Darrick J. Wong
2019-10-31 23:45 ` [PATCH 05/28] xfs: correctly acount for reclaimable slabs Dave Chinner
2019-10-31 23:45 ` [PATCH 06/28] xfs: factor common AIL item deletion code Dave Chinner
2019-11-04 23:16 ` Darrick J. Wong
2019-10-31 23:45 ` [PATCH 07/28] xfs: tail updates only need to occur when LSN changes Dave Chinner
2019-11-04 23:18 ` Darrick J. Wong
2019-10-31 23:45 ` [PATCH 08/28] xfs: factor inode lookup from xfs_ifree_cluster Dave Chinner
2019-11-01 12:05 ` Brian Foster
2019-11-04 23:20 ` Darrick J. Wong
2019-10-31 23:45 ` [PATCH 09/28] mm: directed shrinker work deferral Dave Chinner
2019-11-04 15:25 ` Brian Foster
2019-11-14 20:49 ` Dave Chinner
2019-11-15 17:21 ` Brian Foster
2019-11-18 0:49 ` Dave Chinner
2019-11-19 15:12 ` Brian Foster
2019-10-31 23:46 ` [PATCH 10/28] shrinkers: use defer_work for GFP_NOFS sensitive shrinkers Dave Chinner
2019-10-31 23:46 ` [PATCH 11/28] mm: factor shrinker work calculations Dave Chinner
2019-11-02 10:55 ` kbuild test robot
2019-11-04 15:29 ` Brian Foster
2019-11-14 20:59 ` Dave Chinner
2019-10-31 23:46 ` [PATCH 12/28] shrinker: defer work only to kswapd Dave Chinner
2019-11-04 15:29 ` Brian Foster
2019-11-14 21:11 ` Dave Chinner
2019-11-15 17:23 ` Brian Foster
2019-10-31 23:46 ` [PATCH 13/28] shrinker: clean up variable types and tracepoints Dave Chinner
2019-11-04 15:30 ` Brian Foster
2019-10-31 23:46 ` [PATCH 14/28] mm: reclaim_state records pages reclaimed, not slabs Dave Chinner
2019-11-04 19:58 ` Brian Foster
2019-10-31 23:46 ` [PATCH 15/28] mm: back off direct reclaim on excessive shrinker deferral Dave Chinner
2019-11-04 19:58 ` Brian Foster
2019-11-14 21:28 ` Dave Chinner
2019-10-31 23:46 ` [PATCH 16/28] mm: kswapd backoff for shrinkers Dave Chinner
2019-11-04 19:58 ` Brian Foster
2019-11-14 21:41 ` Dave Chinner
2019-10-31 23:46 ` [PATCH 17/28] xfs: synchronous AIL pushing Dave Chinner
2019-11-05 17:05 ` Brian Foster
2019-10-31 23:46 ` [PATCH 18/28] xfs: don't block kswapd in inode reclaim Dave Chinner
2019-10-31 23:46 ` [PATCH 19/28] xfs: reduce kswapd blocking on inode locking Dave Chinner
2019-11-05 17:05 ` Brian Foster
2019-10-31 23:46 ` [PATCH 20/28] xfs: kill background reclaim work Dave Chinner
2019-11-05 17:05 ` Brian Foster
2019-10-31 23:46 ` [PATCH 21/28] xfs: use AIL pushing for inode reclaim IO Dave Chinner
2019-11-05 17:06 ` Brian Foster
2019-10-31 23:46 ` [PATCH 22/28] xfs: remove mode from xfs_reclaim_inodes() Dave Chinner
2019-10-31 23:46 ` [PATCH 23/28] xfs: track reclaimable inodes using a LRU list Dave Chinner
2019-10-31 23:46 ` [PATCH 24/28] xfs: reclaim inodes from the LRU Dave Chinner
2019-11-06 17:21 ` Brian Foster
2019-11-14 21:51 ` Dave Chinner
2019-10-31 23:46 ` [PATCH 25/28] xfs: remove unusued old inode reclaim code Dave Chinner
2019-11-06 17:21 ` Brian Foster
2019-10-31 23:46 ` [PATCH 26/28] xfs: use xfs_ail_push_all in xfs_reclaim_inodes Dave Chinner
2019-11-06 17:22 ` Brian Foster
2019-11-14 21:53 ` Dave Chinner
2019-10-31 23:46 ` [PATCH 27/28] rwsem: introduce down/up_write_non_owner Dave Chinner
2019-10-31 23:46 ` [PATCH 28/28] xfs: rework unreferenced inode lookups Dave Chinner
2019-11-06 22:18 ` Brian Foster
2019-11-14 22:16 ` Dave Chinner
2019-11-15 13:13 ` Christoph Hellwig
2019-11-15 17:26 ` Brian Foster
2019-11-18 1:00 ` Dave Chinner
2019-11-19 15:13 ` Brian Foster
2019-11-19 21:18 ` Dave Chinner
2019-11-20 12:42 ` Brian Foster [this message]
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=20191120124224.GA15542@bfoster \
--to=bfoster@redhat.com \
--cc=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org \
/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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).