Michal Hocko wrote: > On Thu 23-11-17 22:57:06, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > > Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > @@ -260,9 +261,8 @@ static struct super_block *alloc_super(struct file_system_type *type, int flags, > > > > s->s_shrink.count_objects = super_cache_count; > > > > s->s_shrink.batch = 1024; > > > > s->s_shrink.flags = SHRINKER_NUMA_AWARE | SHRINKER_MEMCG_AWARE; > > > > - INIT_LIST_HEAD(&s->s_shrink.list); > > > > - return s; > > > > - > > > > + if (register_shrinker(&s->s_shrink) == 0) > > > > + return s; > > > > fail: > > > > destroy_unused_super(s); > > > > return NULL; > > > > > > But I am not sure this is correct. So what protects shrinker invocation > > > while the object is not initialized yet? > > > > Then, what protects shrinker invocation in your patch? > > It is s_umount lock but that one is alreay held at the point where you > suggested register_shrinker. My bad, I could have noticed that. Feel > free to take over and send a patch. Considering I've screwed several > times already I do not feel I am the right one to send the fix. > I will wait for your posting. I feel we want to update the comment block saying "this object isn't exposed yet", for it is confusing that we already exposed the shrinker inside the object.
