mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Oleg Drokin <green@linuxhacker.ru>
To: Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Cc: Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"<linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>" <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: More parallel atomic_open/d_splice_alias fun with NFS and possibly more FSes.
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2016 20:29:37 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <6188A470-DF7F-44CE-89F0-117EC2FA1677@linuxhacker.ru> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1587788B-C7F6-4D19-BDAD-29846231CD6C@linuxhacker.ru>


On Jul 5, 2016, at 4:21 PM, Oleg Drokin wrote:
> 
>>> So with Lustre the dentry can be in three states, really:
>>> 
>>> 1. hashed dentry that's all A-ok to reuse.
>>> 2. hashed dentry that's NOT valid (dlm lock went away) - this is distinguished in d_compare by looking at a bit in the fs_data
>>> 3. unhashed dentry ( I guess could be both valid and invalid lustre-wise).
>>> 
>>> So the logic in ll_lookup_it_finish() (part of regular lookup) is this:
>>> 
>>> If the dentry we have is not hashed - this is a new lookup, so we need to
>>> call into ll_splice_alias() to see if there's a better dentry we need to
>>> reuse that was already rejected by VFS before since we did not have necessary locks,
>>> but we do have them now.
>>> The comment at the top of ll_dcompare() explains why we don't just unhash the
>>> dentry on lock-loss - that apparently leads to a loop around real_lookup for
>>> real-contended dentries.
>>> This is also why we cannot use d_splice_alias here - such cases are possible
>>> for regular files and directories.
>>> 
>>> Anyway, I guess additional point of confusion here is then why does
>>> ll_lookup_it_finish() need to check for hashedness of the dentry since it's in
>>> lookup, so we should be unhashed here.
>>> I checked the commit history and this check was added along with atomic_open
>>> support, so I imagine we can just move it up into ll_atomic_open and then your
>>> change starts to make sense along with a few other things.
>> 
>> So basically this
>>       } else if (!it_disposition(it, DISP_LOOKUP_NEG)  &&
>>                  !it_disposition(it, DISP_OPEN_CREATE)) {
>>               /* With DISP_OPEN_CREATE dentry will be
>>                * instantiated in ll_create_it.
>>                */
>>               LASSERT(!d_inode(*de));
>>               d_instantiate(*de, inode);
>>       }
>> is something we should do only for negative hashed fed to it by
>> ->atomic_open(), and that - only if we have no O_CREAT in flags?
> 
> Yes, and in fact we can totally avoid it I think.
> 
>> Then, since 3/3 eliminates that case completely, we could just rip that
>> else-if, along with the check for d_unhashed itself, making the call of
>> ll_splice_alias() unconditional there.  Or am I misreading what you said?
>> Do you see any problems with what's in #for-linus now (head at 11f0083)?
> 
> Yes, we can make it unconditional
> I think we can simplify it even more and since unlike NFS our negative dentries
> are a lot less speculative, we can just return ENOENT if this is not a create
> request and unhash otherwise. Still needs to go through the whole test suite
> to make sure it does not break anything unexpected.
> 
> At least this is the patch I am playing with right now:
> --- a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/llite/namei.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/llite/namei.c
> @@ -391,6 +391,7 @@ static int ll_lookup_it_finish(struct ptlrpc_request *request,
> 	struct inode *inode = NULL;
> 	__u64 bits = 0;
> 	int rc = 0;
> +	struct dentry *alias;
> 
> 	/* NB 1 request reference will be taken away by ll_intent_lock()
> 	 * when I return
> @@ -415,26 +416,12 @@ static int ll_lookup_it_finish(struct ptlrpc_request *request,
> 		 */
> 	}
> 
> -	/* Only hash *de if it is unhashed (new dentry).
> -	 * Atoimc_open may passing hashed dentries for open.
> -	 */
> -	if (d_unhashed(*de)) {
> -		struct dentry *alias;
> -
> -		alias = ll_splice_alias(inode, *de);
> -		if (IS_ERR(alias)) {
> -			rc = PTR_ERR(alias);
> -			goto out;
> -		}
> -		*de = alias;
> -	} else if (!it_disposition(it, DISP_LOOKUP_NEG)  &&
> -		   !it_disposition(it, DISP_OPEN_CREATE)) {
> -		/* With DISP_OPEN_CREATE dentry will be
> -		 * instantiated in ll_create_it.
> -		 */
> -		LASSERT(!d_inode(*de));
> -		d_instantiate(*de, inode);
> +	alias = ll_splice_alias(inode, *de);
> +	if (IS_ERR(alias)) {
> +		rc = PTR_ERR(alias);
> +		goto out;
> 	}
> +	*de = alias;
> 
> 	if (!it_disposition(it, DISP_LOOKUP_NEG)) {
> 		/* we have lookup look - unhide dentry */
> @@ -590,6 +577,24 @@ static int ll_atomic_open(struct inode *dir, struct dentry *dentry,
> 	       dentry, PFID(ll_inode2fid(dir)), dir, file, open_flags, mode,
> 	       *opened);
> 
> +	/* Only negative dentries enter here */
> +	LASSERT(!d_inode(dentry));
> +
> +	if (!(open_flags & O_CREAT) && !d_in_lookup(dentry)) {

Duh, this obviously was supposed to be
 if (!d_in_lookup(dentry)) {

But even in the form above nothing bad happened in the full testing
because we cannot find any aliases without an inode.

> +		/* A valid negative dentry that just passed revalidation,
> +		 * there's little point to try and open it server-side,
> +		 * even though there's a minuscle chance it might succeed.
> +		 * Either way it's a valid race to just return -ENOENT here.
> +		 */
> +		if (!(open_flags & O_CREAT))
> +			return -ENOENT;
> +
> +		/* Otherwise we just unhash it to be rehashed afresh via
> +		 * lookup if necessary
> +		 */
> +		d_drop(dentry);

So we can even drop this part and retain the top condition as it was.
d_add does not care if the dentry we are feeding it was hashed or not,
so do you see any downsides to doing that I wonder?

> +	}
> +
> 	it = kzalloc(sizeof(*it), GFP_NOFS);
> 	if (!it)
> 		return -ENOMEM;
> 
> 

  reply	other threads:[~2016-07-06  0:29 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 34+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-06-17  4:09 Oleg Drokin
2016-06-17  4:29 ` Al Viro
2016-06-25 16:38   ` Oleg Drokin
2016-07-03  6:29     ` Al Viro
2016-07-04  0:08       ` Al Viro
2016-07-04  0:37         ` Oleg Drokin
2016-07-04  3:08           ` Al Viro
2016-07-04  3:55             ` Oleg Drokin
2016-07-05  2:25               ` Al Viro
2016-07-10 17:01                 ` Oleg Drokin
2016-07-10 18:14                   ` James Simmons
2016-07-11  1:01                     ` Al Viro
2016-07-11  1:03                       ` Al Viro
2016-07-11 22:54                         ` lustre sendmsg stuff Oleg Drokin
2016-07-11 17:15                       ` More parallel atomic_open/d_splice_alias fun with NFS and possibly more FSes James Simmons
2016-07-05  2:28       ` Oleg Drokin
2016-07-05  2:32         ` Oleg Drokin
2016-07-05  4:43         ` Oleg Drokin
2016-07-05  6:22       ` Oleg Drokin
2016-07-05 12:31         ` Al Viro
2016-07-05 13:51           ` Al Viro
2016-07-05 15:21             ` Oleg Drokin
2016-07-05 17:42               ` Al Viro
2016-07-05 18:12                 ` Oleg Drokin
2016-07-05 16:33             ` Oleg Drokin
2016-07-05 18:08               ` Al Viro
2016-07-05 19:12                 ` Oleg Drokin
2016-07-05 20:08                   ` Al Viro
2016-07-05 20:21                     ` Oleg Drokin
2016-07-06  0:29                       ` Oleg Drokin [this message]
2016-07-06  3:20                         ` Al Viro
2016-07-06  3:25                           ` Oleg Drokin
2016-07-06  4:35                             ` Oleg Drokin
2016-07-06 16:24             ` Oleg Drokin

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=6188A470-DF7F-44CE-89F0-117EC2FA1677@linuxhacker.ru \
    --to=green@linuxhacker.ru \
    --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.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

Powered by JetHome