On Wednesday 22 June 2016 08:31 AM, Wei Fang wrote:
> We triggered soft-lockup under stress test which
> open/access/write/close one file concurrently on more than
> five different CPUs:
>
> WARN: soft lockup - CPU#0 stuck for 11s! [who:30631]
> ...
> [<ffffffc0003986f8>] dput+0x100/0x298
> [<ffffffc00038c2dc>] terminate_walk+0x4c/0x60
> [<ffffffc00038f56c>] path_lookupat+0x5cc/0x7a8
> [<ffffffc00038f780>] filename_lookup+0x38/0xf0
> [<ffffffc000391180>] user_path_at_empty+0x78/0xd0
> [<ffffffc0003911f4>] user_path_at+0x1c/0x28
> [<ffffffc00037d4fc>] SyS_faccessat+0xb4/0x230
>
> ->d_lock trylock may failed many times because of concurrently
> operations, and dput() may execute a long time.
>
> Fix this by replacing cpu_relax() with cond_resched().
> dput() used to be sleepable, so make it sleepable again
> should be safe.
Hi,
Just a question regarding this change. As after this change
dput() is sleepable, is it still safe to use if under the
spinlock in the function d_prune_aliases?
Thanks
> Cc: <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Wei Fang <fangwei1@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> Changes v1->v2:
> - add might_sleep() to annotate that dput() can sleep
>
> fs/dcache.c | 4 +++-
> 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/dcache.c b/fs/dcache.c
> index d5ecc6e..074fc1c 100644
> --- a/fs/dcache.c
> +++ b/fs/dcache.c
> @@ -578,7 +578,7 @@ static struct dentry *dentry_kill(struct dentry *dentry)
>
> failed:
> spin_unlock(&dentry->d_lock);
> - cpu_relax();
> + cond_resched();
> return dentry; /* try again with same dentry */
> }
>
> @@ -752,6 +752,8 @@ void dput(struct dentry *dentry)
> return;
>
> repeat:
> + might_sleep();
> +
> rcu_read_lock();
> if (likely(fast_dput(dentry))) {
> rcu_read_unlock();
>
--
Vaishali
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
