Re: [PATCH] Per-superblock unused dentry LRU lists.

[David Chinner <dgc@sgi.com>]

On Wed, May 24, 2006 at 12:36:06PM +0530, Balbir Singh wrote:
> > > You can use trylock. Please see the patches in -mm to fix the umount
> > > race.
> > 
> > I'm not sure what unmount race you are talking about.
> > 
> > AFAICT, there is no race here - we've got a reference on the superblock so  it
> > can't go away and the lru list is protected by the dcache_lock, so there's
> > nothing else we can race with. However, we can deadlock by taking the
> > s_umount lock here. So why even bother to try to take the lock when we don't
> > actually need it?
> 
> Please read the thread at http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/4/2/101.

Ok, thanks for the pointer. it's a completely differnt sort of race you're
talking about ;)

I'll have to look at the -mm tree and how the locking is different
there before commenting further.

> > > > +		if (__put_super_and_need_restart(sb) && count)
> > > > +			goto restart;
> > > 
> > > Comment please.
> > 
> > I'm not sure what a comment needs to explain that the code doesn't.
> > Which bit do you think needs commenting?
> 
> I was referring to the __put_super_and_need_restart() part.

Ok. i didn't think it necessary given it's use in several other places
and the comment at the head of __put_super_and_need_restart() explain
exactly what it does and when to use it. Comment added anyway.

> > > This should not be required with per super-block dentries. The only
> > > reason, I think we moved dentries to the tail is to club all entries
> > > from the sb together (to free them all at once).
> > 
> > I think we still need to do that. We get called in contexts that aren't
> > related to unmounting, so we want these dentries to be the first
> > to be reclaimed from that superblock when we next call prune_dcache().
> 
> Is it? I quickly checked the callers of shrink_dcache_sb() and all of
> them seem to be mount related. shrink_dcache_parent() is another story.
> Am I missing something? Code reference will be particularly useful.

I thought you were referring to shrink_dcache_parent(). At least, I
was, and the hunk of diff that your comment followed after was from
select_parent(). Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think we're
agreeing that it's doing the right thing in select_parent().

The modified shrink_dcache_sb() doesn't do do any list moving at all,
it simply frees all the dentries on the superblock in a single pass.....

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
R&D Software Enginner
SGI Australian Software Group