From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Cc: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 7/8] shift percpu_counter_destroy() into destroy_super_work()
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2015 17:20:35 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150813152035.GB20045@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150813140929.GA4392@quack.suse.cz>
On 08/13, Jan Kara wrote:
>
> On Thu 13-08-15 15:36:16, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > On 08/13, Jan Kara wrote:
> > >
> > > Looking into this again, it would seem somewhat cleaner to me to move the
> > > destruction to deactivate_locked_super() instead.
> >
> > Heh ;) You know, I was looking at deactivate_locked_super(). However, I
> > simply do not understand this code enough, I failed to verify it would
> > be safe to destroy s_writers there.
>
> Yes, it will be safe. After ->kill_sb() callback the filesystem is dead.
> There can be someone still holding reference to superblock but these are
> just users inspecting the structure definitely not caring about freeze
> protection.
OK, thanks.
> > And. Please note destroy_super() in alloc_super() error path, so this
> > needs a bit more changes in any case.
>
> Yes. But you can sleep in alloc_super() so that would be easy enough.
Yes, yes, I didn't mean this is a problem.
> > Can't we live with this hack for now? To remind, it will be reverted
> > (at least partially) in any case. Yes, yes, it is very ugly and the
> > changelog documents this fact. But it looks simple and safe. To me
> > it would be better to make the conversion first, then cleanup this
> > horror after another discussion.
>
> All I care about is that long-term, all handling from destroy_super() that
> needs to sleep ends up in one place. So if you promise you'll make this
> happen I can live with the workqueue solution for now
I certainly promise I will try to do something in any case ;)
But let me repeat another reason why I think we should do this later.
The necessary changes depend on other work-in-progress rcu_sync changes
in percpu_rw_semaphore.
Now that you confirm that we should not worry about sb_writers after
deactivate_locked_super(), the cleanup looks even simpler than I
thought initially:
1. We do not even need to destroy the counters in
deactivate_locked_super(). It should only stop the
(potentially) pending rcu-callback(s).
2. Just revert this patch altogether.
> (but you have to
> convince also Al as a maintainer ;).
Perhaps he won't notice how ugly this change is? If you won't tell him.
Oleg.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-08-13 15:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-08-11 17:03 [PATCH v2 0/8] change sb_writers to use percpu_rw_semaphore Oleg Nesterov
2015-08-11 17:03 ` [PATCH v2 1/8] introduce __sb_{acquire,release}_write() helpers Oleg Nesterov
2015-08-13 9:45 ` Jan Kara
2015-08-13 9:56 ` Jan Kara
2015-08-13 13:17 ` Oleg Nesterov
2015-08-13 13:32 ` Jan Kara
2015-08-13 13:37 ` Oleg Nesterov
2015-08-11 17:04 ` [PATCH v2 2/8] fix the broken lockdep logic in __sb_start_write() Oleg Nesterov
2015-08-13 10:02 ` Jan Kara
2015-08-13 13:22 ` Oleg Nesterov
2015-08-13 13:29 ` Jan Kara
2015-08-11 17:04 ` [PATCH v2 3/8] document rwsem_release() in sb_wait_write() Oleg Nesterov
2015-08-13 10:22 ` Jan Kara
2015-08-11 17:04 ` [PATCH v2 4/8] percpu-rwsem: introduce percpu_down_read_trylock() Oleg Nesterov
2015-08-11 17:04 ` [PATCH v2 5/8] percpu-rwsem: introduce percpu_rwsem_release() and percpu_rwsem_acquire() Oleg Nesterov
2015-08-11 17:04 ` [PATCH v2 6/8] percpu-rwsem: kill CONFIG_PERCPU_RWSEM Oleg Nesterov
2015-08-11 17:04 ` [PATCH v2 7/8] shift percpu_counter_destroy() into destroy_super_work() Oleg Nesterov
2015-08-13 10:35 ` Jan Kara
2015-08-13 13:36 ` Oleg Nesterov
2015-08-13 14:09 ` Jan Kara
2015-08-13 15:20 ` Oleg Nesterov [this message]
2015-08-11 17:04 ` [PATCH v2 8/8] change sb_writers to use percpu_rw_semaphore Oleg Nesterov
2015-08-13 10:48 ` Jan Kara
2015-08-12 13:11 ` [PATCH v2 9/8] don't fool lockdep in freeze_super() and thaw_super() paths Oleg Nesterov
2015-08-13 11:01 ` Jan Kara
2015-08-13 13:58 ` Oleg Nesterov
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=20150813152035.GB20045@redhat.com \
--to=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
/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).