xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 1/3] xfs: push down inactive transaction mgmt for remote syml

To: Brian Foster <bfoster@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] xfs: push down inactive transaction mgmt for remote symlinks
From: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 09:23:56 +1000
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <523AF184.3030002@xxxxxxxxxx>
References: <1379520960-22972-1-git-send-email-bfoster@xxxxxxxxxx> <1379520960-22972-2-git-send-email-bfoster@xxxxxxxxxx> <5239EBA2.4070207@xxxxxxxxxx> <20130918225120.GC9901@dastard> <523AF184.3030002@xxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 08:43:48AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote:
> On 09/18/2013 06:51 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 02:06:26PM -0400, Brian Foster wrote:
> >> I just want to call out one thing here in case it isn't noticed on
> >> review... the safety of this is something I was curious about.
> >> Specifically, note that I've removed the inode locking from
> >> xfs_inactive(), which previously covered xfs_inactive_symlink() (for
> >> xfs_idata_realloc()), down into xfs_inactive_symlink_rmt().
> > 
> > see my comments about idata_realloc() in the previous email. It
> > might be safe, but it's better not to leave a landmine if we add
> > some other caller to the function in the future.
> > 
> >> My assumption was that this is currently ok since at this point we have
> >> an inode with di_nlink == 0.
> > 
> > It's not an entirely correct assumption. The end result is likely
> > the same, but di_nlink has no influence here. i.e. the inode
> > lifecycle is rather complex and there is an interesting condition
> > that covers inodes going through xfs_inactive().
> > 
> > xfs_inactive() is called when the VFS reference count goes to zero
> > and the VFS inode is being reclaimed, but the XFS_IRECLAIMABLE flag
> > is not yet set on it. This doesn't happen until after xfs_inactive()
> > completes and the VFS calls ->destroy_inode. Hence the inode is in a
> > limbo state where calls to igrab() will fail but the inode can be
> > found in the inode radix trees without being marked as "under
> > reclaim conditions".
> > 
> > We handle this with xfs_iget_cache_hit() by the use of igrab(),
> > which will fail on such an inode, and we use the same logic in
> > xfs_inode_ag_walk_grab() to avoid this hole. That said,
> > xfs_reclaim_inode_grab() does no such thing - it only checks for
> > XFS_IRECLAIMABLE under an RCU traversal, and so may find inodes for
> > which that the radix tree reclaimable tag is stale. hence that
> > check is always done under a spinlock.
> > 
> > IOWs, the only thing that protects us from outside interference in
> > xfs_inactive() is the logic in the XFS inode cache lookups
> > specifically avoiding inodes in the transient state that
> > xfs_inactive() is called under. It doesn't matter what the contents
> > of the inode are - it's the safe transition from one lifecycle state
> > to the next that is important at this point.
> > 
> > So, like I said in the previous email, we have to be careful with
> > cache lookups to prevent races with the work xfs_inactive() is
> > doing, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't still lock the inodes
> > correctly when modifying them...
> > 
> 
> So broadly speaking, the inode states are more granular than my di_nlink
> based assumption.

More that the inode lifecycle states are not related to the value of
di_nlink at all ;)

> We have to account for access via internal caches,
> even if the inode is in the process of being torn down in the vfs. I'll
> have to wade through the caching code much more to understand the
> intricacies. ;) Thanks for the breakdown.

First you need to understand the VFS inode lifecycle, as the XFS
inode lifecycle mostly wraps around the outside of the VFS inode
lifecycle. ;)

> With regard to the locking here, any preference as to whether
> xfs_inactive_symlink() takes the lock and hands it to
> xfs_inactive_symlink_rmt() or the former locks/unlocks and the latter
> continues to work as implemented in this patch (save other comments to
> be addressed)?
> 
> Actually now that I look at the code, xfs_inactive_symlink_rmt() does
> the transaction allocation and reservation now, so for that reason I
> think the lock/unlock pattern is required.

Right, they are effectively two different cases with different
locking constraints.

Cheers,

Dave.

> 
> Brian
> 
> >> If that's not accurate or not expected to
> >> remain so after O_TMPFILE related work, I suppose I could pull the
> >> locking back up into xfs_inactive_symlink().
> > 
> > O_TMPFILE itself won't change anything - they will look just like
> > any other unlinked inode going through xfs_inactive() on their way
> > to the XFS_IRECLAIMABLE state.
> > 
> > It's when we start separating the xfs_inactive() work into multiple
> > distinct stages to allow for optimisation of inode freeing that we
> > need to be careful as these introduce new states into the lifecycle
> > state machine. These will most likely involve new state flags and
> > radix tree tags and walks, but AFAICT, overall concept that
> > xfs_inactive/xfs_inactive_symlink is run from the same special
> > isolated "limbo" context should not change....
> > 
> > Cheers,
> > 
> > Dave.
> > 
> 
> 

-- 
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

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