[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 08/12] superblock: introduce per-sb cache shrinker infrastruc

To: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/12] superblock: introduce per-sb cache shrinker infrastructure
From: Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2011 01:42:31 +0100
Cc: linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-mm@xxxxxxxxx, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <1306998067-27659-9-git-send-email-david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <1306998067-27659-1-git-send-email-david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1306998067-27659-9-git-send-email-david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
> @@ -278,7 +325,12 @@ void generic_shutdown_super(struct super_block *sb)
>  {
>       const struct super_operations *sop = sb->s_op;
> -
> +     /*
> +      * shut down the shrinker first so we know that there are no possible
> +      * races when shrinking the dcache or icache. Removes the need for
> +      * external locking to prevent such races.
> +      */
> +     unregister_shrinker(&sb->s_shrink);
>       if (sb->s_root) {
>               shrink_dcache_for_umount(sb);
>               sync_filesystem(sb);

What it means is that shrinker_rwsem now nests inside ->s_umount...  IOW,
if any ->shrink() gets stuck, so does every generic_shutdown_super().
I'm still not convinced it's a good idea - especially since _this_
superblock will be skipped anyway.  Is there any good reason to evict
shrinker that early?  Note that doing that after ->s_umount is dropped
should be reasonably safe - your shrinker will see that superblock is
doomed if it's called anywhere in that window...

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>