[PATCH 07/11] xfs: mark reclaimed inodes invalid earlier

[Brian Foster]

On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 04:49:00PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 03:31:28PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > From: Dave Chinner <dchinner at redhat.com>
> > 
> > The last thing we do before using call_rcu() on an xfs_inode to be
> > freed is mark it as invalid. This means there is a window between
> > when we know for certain that the inode is going to be freed and
> > when we do actually mark it as "freed".
> > 
> > This is important in the context of RCU lookups - we can look up the
> > inode, find that it is valid, and then use it as such not realising
> > that it is in the final stages of being freed.
> > 
> > As such, mark the inode as being invalid the moment we know it is
> > going to be reclaimed. This can be done while we still hold the
> > XFS_ILOCK_EXCL and the flush lock in xfs_inode_reclaim, meaning that
> > it occurs well before we remove it from the radix tree, and that
> > the i_flags_lock, the XFS_ILOCK and the inode flush lock all act as
> > synchronisation points for detecting that an inode is about to go
> > away.
> > 
> > For defensive purposes, this allows us to add a further check to
> > xfs_iflush_cluster to ensure we skip inodes that are being freed
> > after we grab the XFS_ILOCK_SHARED and the flush lock - we know that
> > if the inode number if valid while we have these locks held we know
> > that it has not progressed through reclaim to the point where it is
> > clean and is about to be freed.
> > 
> > [bfoster: fixed __xfs_inode_clear_reclaim() using ip->i_ino after it
> > 	  had already been zeroed.]
> 
> And, of course, in reordering this I dropped this fix because it was
> handled by the reworking of tagging code to use pag->pag_agno.
> 
> So I've brought that small change forward to this patch (using
> pag->pag_agno instead of deriving it from the ip->i_ino in
> __xfs_inode_clear_reclaim()).
> 

I don't see any such change in this patch..?
__xfs_inode_clear_reclaim() still uses ip->i_ino.

Brian

> That means I have to rebase the later cleanup patch too, but the end
> result of the patch set is identical...
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Dave.
> -- 
> Dave Chinner
> david at fromorbit.com
> 
> _______________________________________________
> xfs mailing list
> xfs at oss.sgi.com
> http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs