This patch attempts to enable RCU-walk for fscrypt. It looks harmless at glance and could have better performance than do ref-walk only. Signed-off-by: Gao Xiang <gaoxiang25@xxxxxxxxxx> --- p.s. In my opinion, it is better to retry for the case of READ_ONCE(dentry->d_parent) != dir rather than just return 0; and then do real lookup for ref-walk path... It behaves much like a seqlock and I tend to avoid taking d_lock as well.. Please kindly correct me if I am wrong... Thanks in advance. Thanks, Gao Xiang fs/crypto/crypto.c | 23 ++++++++++++++++------- 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) diff --git a/fs/crypto/crypto.c b/fs/crypto/crypto.c index b38c574f70ac..2cc26fe9c43d 100644 --- a/fs/crypto/crypto.c +++ b/fs/crypto/crypto.c @@ -319,20 +319,29 @@ static int fscrypt_d_revalidate(struct dentry *dentry, unsigned int flags) { struct dentry *dir; int dir_has_key, cached_with_key; + struct inode *dir_inode; - if (flags & LOOKUP_RCU) - return -ECHILD; +repeat: + rcu_read_lock(); + dir = READ_ONCE(dentry->d_parent); - dir = dget_parent(dentry); - if (!IS_ENCRYPTED(d_inode(dir))) { - dput(dir); + dir_inode = d_inode_rcu(dir); + if (!dir_inode || !IS_ENCRYPTED(dir_inode)) { + rcu_read_unlock(); return 0; } + dir_has_key = (dir_inode->i_crypt_info != NULL); + + /* original dir becomes invalid after sampling all? */ + if (unlikely(__lockref_is_dead(&dir->d_lockref) || + READ_ONCE(dentry->d_parent) != dir)) { + rcu_read_unlock(); + goto repeat; + } + rcu_read_unlock(); cached_with_key = READ_ONCE(dentry->d_flags) & DCACHE_ENCRYPTED_WITH_KEY; - dir_has_key = (d_inode(dir)->i_crypt_info != NULL); - dput(dir); /* * If the dentry was cached without the key, and it is a -- 2.14.4