On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 09:12:14AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 02:41:16AM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 06:53:06PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > @@ -456,21 +456,16 @@ static void prune_one_dentry(struct dentry * dentry)
> > > + /*
> > > + * if we can't get the umount lock, then there's no point having the
> > > + * shrinker try again because the sb is being torn down.
> > > + */
> > > + if (!down_read_trylock(&sb->s_umount))
> > > + return -1;
> >
> > Would you just elaborate on the lock order problem somewhere? (the
> > comment makes it look like we *could* take the mutex if we wanted
> > to).
>
> The shrinker is unregistered in deactivate_locked_super() which is
> just before ->kill_sb is called. The sb->s_umount lock is held at
> this point. hence is the shrinker is operating, we will deadlock if
> we try to lock it like this:
>
> unmount: shrinker:
> down_read(&shrinker_lock);
> down_write(&sb->s_umount)
> unregister_shrinker()
> down_write(&shrinker_lock)
> prune_super()
> down_read(&sb->s_umount);
> (deadlock)
>
> hence if we can't get the sb->s_umount lock in prune_super(), then
> the superblock must be being unmounted and the shrinker should abort
> as the ->kill_sb method will clean up everything after the shrinker
> is unregistered. Hence the down_read_trylock().
You added it to the comment in your updated patch, that was the main
thing I wanted. Thanks.
> > > + if (!sb->s_root) {
> > > + up_read(&sb->s_umount);
> > > + return -1;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + if (nr_to_scan) {
> > > + /* proportion the scan between the two cacheѕ */
> > > + int total;
> > > +
> > > + total = sb->s_nr_dentry_unused + sb->s_nr_inodes_unused + 1;
> > > + count = (nr_to_scan * sb->s_nr_dentry_unused) / total;
> > > +
> > > + /* prune dcache first as icache is pinned by it */
> > > + prune_dcache_sb(sb, count);
> > > + prune_icache_sb(sb, nr_to_scan - count);
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + count = ((sb->s_nr_dentry_unused + sb->s_nr_inodes_unused) / 100)
> > > + * sysctl_vfs_cache_pressure;
> >
> > Do you think truncating in the divisions is at all a problem? It
> > probably doesn't matter much I suppose.
>
> Same code as currently exists. IIRC, the reasoning is that if we've
> got less that 100 objects to reclaim, then we're unlikely to be able
> to free up any memory from the caches, anyway.
Yeah, which is why I stop short of saying you should change it in
this patch.
But I think we should ensure things can get reclaimed eventually.
100 objects could be 100 slabs, which could be anything from
half a meg to half a dozen. Multiplied by each of the caches.
Could be significant in small systems.
--
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
