On 2021/7/3 0:11, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 02, 2021 at 09:52:13PM +0800, Zhang Yi wrote:
>>
>> Sorry about not catching this problem, this fix is not format corrected,
>> if you think this fix is OK, I can send a patch after test.
>
> The issue I see with your approach, which removes the
> jbd2_journal_unregister_shrinker() call from jbd2_destsroy_journal(),
> is that means that *all* callers of jbd2_destroy_journal now have to
> be responsible for calling jbd2_journal_unregister_shrinker() --- and
> there a number of call sites to jbd2_journal_unregister_shrinker():
>
> fs/ext4/super.c: err = jbd2_journal_destroy(sbi->s_journal);
> fs/ext4/super.c: jbd2_journal_destroy(sbi->s_journal);
> fs/ext4/super.c: jbd2_journal_destroy(journal);
> fs/ext4/super.c: jbd2_journal_destroy(journal);
> fs/ext4/super.c: jbd2_journal_destroy(journal);
> fs/ocfs2/journal.c: if (!jbd2_journal_destroy(journal->j_journal) && !status) {
> fs/ocfs2/journal.c: jbd2_journal_destroy(journal);
> fs/ocfs2/journal.c: jbd2_journal_destroy(journal);
>
Originally, I want to add this shrinker as a optional feature for jbd2 because
only ext4 use it now and I'm not sure does ocfs2 needs this feature. So I export
jbd2_journal_[un]register_shrinker(), ext4 could invoke them individually.
If with my fix, there is no responsible for calling
jbd2_journal_unregister_shrinker() before every jbd2_journal_destroy(). There
are only two places that need to do this, one is the error path after
ext4_load_journal() because we have already register the shrinker, other one
is in ext4_put_super() before the final release of the journal.
jbd2_journal_unregister_shrinker() and jbd2_journal_destroy() do not have
the strong dependence.
And one more thing we to could do is rename the 'j_jh_shrink_count' to something
like 'j_checkpoint_jh_count' because we always init it no matter we register the
shrinker or not later.
> So it probably makes more sense to keep jbd2_journal_unregister_shrinker()
> in jbd2_destroy_journal(), since arguably the fact that we are using a
> shrinker is an internal implementation detail, and the users of jbd2
> ideally shouldn't need to be expected to know they have unregister
> jbd2's shirnkers.
>
> Similarly, perhaps we should be moving jbd2_journal_register_shirnker()
> into jbd2_journal_init_common(). We can un-export the register and
> unshrink register functions, and declare them as static functions internal
> to fs/jbd2/journal.c.
>
Yeah, it's make sense and It's sound good to me if the shrinker doesn't have
side effects on osfs2.
Thanks,
Yi.
