Commit 046b961b authored by Al Viro's avatar Al Viro

shrink_dentry_list(): take parent's ->d_lock earlier

The cause of livelocks there is that we are taking ->d_lock on
dentry and its parent in the wrong order, forcing us to use
trylock on the parent's one.  d_walk() takes them in the right
order, and unfortunately it's not hard to create a situation
when shrink_dentry_list() can't make progress since trylock
keeps failing, and shrink_dcache_parent() or check_submounts_and_drop()
keeps calling d_walk() disrupting the very shrink_dentry_list() it's
waiting for.

Solution is straightforward - if that trylock fails, let's unlock
the dentry itself and take locks in the right order.  We need to
stabilize ->d_parent without holding ->d_lock, but that's doable
using RCU.  And we'd better do that in the very beginning of the
loop in shrink_dentry_list(), since the checks on refcount, etc.
would need to be redone anyway.

That deals with a half of the problem - killing dentries on the
shrink list itself.  Another one (dropping their parents) is
in the next commit.

locking parent is interesting - it would be easy to do rcu_read_lock(),
lock whatever we think is a parent, lock dentry itself and check
if the parent is still the right one.  Except that we need to check
that *before* locking the dentry, or we are risking taking ->d_lock
out of order.  Fortunately, once the D1 is locked, we can check if
D2->d_parent is equal to D1 without the need to lock D2; D2->d_parent
can start or stop pointing to D1 only under D1->d_lock, so taking
D1->d_lock is enough.  In other words, the right solution is
rcu_read_lock/lock what looks like parent right now/check if it's
still our parent/rcu_read_unlock/lock the child.
Signed-off-by: default avatarAl Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
parent ff2fde99
......@@ -530,6 +530,38 @@ dentry_kill(struct dentry *dentry, int unlock_on_failure)
return dentry; /* try again with same dentry */
}
static inline struct dentry *lock_parent(struct dentry *dentry)
{
struct dentry *parent = dentry->d_parent;
if (IS_ROOT(dentry))
return NULL;
if (likely(spin_trylock(&parent->d_lock)))
return parent;
spin_unlock(&dentry->d_lock);
rcu_read_lock();
again:
parent = ACCESS_ONCE(dentry->d_parent);
spin_lock(&parent->d_lock);
/*
* We can't blindly lock dentry until we are sure
* that we won't violate the locking order.
* Any changes of dentry->d_parent must have
* been done with parent->d_lock held, so
* spin_lock() above is enough of a barrier
* for checking if it's still our child.
*/
if (unlikely(parent != dentry->d_parent)) {
spin_unlock(&parent->d_lock);
goto again;
}
rcu_read_unlock();
if (parent != dentry)
spin_lock(&dentry->d_lock);
else
parent = NULL;
return parent;
}
/*
* This is dput
*
......@@ -804,6 +836,8 @@ static void shrink_dentry_list(struct list_head *list)
struct inode *inode;
dentry = list_entry(list->prev, struct dentry, d_lru);
spin_lock(&dentry->d_lock);
parent = lock_parent(dentry);
/*
* The dispose list is isolated and dentries are not accounted
* to the LRU here, so we can simply remove it from the list
......@@ -817,6 +851,8 @@ static void shrink_dentry_list(struct list_head *list)
*/
if ((int)dentry->d_lockref.count > 0) {
spin_unlock(&dentry->d_lock);
if (parent)
spin_unlock(&parent->d_lock);
continue;
}
......@@ -824,6 +860,8 @@ static void shrink_dentry_list(struct list_head *list)
if (unlikely(dentry->d_flags & DCACHE_DENTRY_KILLED)) {
bool can_free = dentry->d_flags & DCACHE_MAY_FREE;
spin_unlock(&dentry->d_lock);
if (parent)
spin_unlock(&parent->d_lock);
if (can_free)
dentry_free(dentry);
continue;
......@@ -833,22 +871,13 @@ static void shrink_dentry_list(struct list_head *list)
if (inode && unlikely(!spin_trylock(&inode->i_lock))) {
d_shrink_add(dentry, list);
spin_unlock(&dentry->d_lock);
if (parent)
spin_unlock(&parent->d_lock);
continue;
}
parent = NULL;
if (!IS_ROOT(dentry)) {
parent = dentry->d_parent;
if (unlikely(!spin_trylock(&parent->d_lock))) {
if (inode)
spin_unlock(&inode->i_lock);
d_shrink_add(dentry, list);
spin_unlock(&dentry->d_lock);
continue;
}
}
__dentry_kill(dentry);
/*
* We need to prune ancestors too. This is necessary to prevent
* quadratic behavior of shrink_dcache_parent(), but is also
......
Markdown is supported
0%
or
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment