Re: [RFC] Move kfree outside pde_unload_lock

[Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com>]

On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 03:54:54PM -0500, Nathan Zimmer wrote:
> I am currently tracking a hotlock reported by a customer on a large, 512 cores,
> system, I am currently running 3.6.0 rc1 but the issue looks like it has been
> this way for a very long time.
> The offending lock is proc_dir_entry->pde_unload_lock.  
> 
> In proc_reg_release we are doing a kfree under the spinlock which is ok but it
> means we are holding the lock longer then required. Scaling improved when I 
> moved kfree out.

It's OK to move it out.
Acked-by: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com>

> Also shouldn't the comment on pde_unload_lock also note that pde_openers and 
> pde_unload_completion are both used under the lock?

Yeah, why not.

> --- a/fs/proc/inode.c
> +++ b/fs/proc/inode.c
> @@ -403,9 +403,11 @@ static int proc_reg_release(struct inode *inode, struct file *file)
>  	release = pde->proc_fops->release;
>  	if (pdeo) {
>  		list_del(&pdeo->lh);
> -		kfree(pdeo);
>  	}
>  	spin_unlock(&pde->pde_unload_lock);
> +	if (pdeo) {
> +		kfree(pdeo);
> +	}
>  
>  	if (release)
>  		rv = release(inode, file);