shrink_dentry_list(): take parent's ->d_lock earlier
commit 046b961b upstream. 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: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk> Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Showing
Please register or sign in to comment