On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 10:42:21AM +0800, Guo Chao wrote: > On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 08:49:12AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > > > On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 05:31:02PM +0800, Guo Chao wrote: > > > This patchset optimizes several places which take the per inode spin lock. > > > They have not been fully tested yet, thus they are marked as RFC. > > > > Inodes are RCU freed. The i_lock spinlock on the i_state field forms > > part of the memory barrier that allows the RCU read side to > > correctly detect a freed inode during a RCU protected cache lookup > > (hash list traversal for the VFS, or a radix tree traversal for XFS). > > The i_lock usage around the hahs list operations ensures the hash > > list operations are atomic with state changes so that such changes > > are correctly detected during RCU-protected traversals... > > > > IOWs, removing the i_lock from around the i_state transitions and > > inode hash insert/remove/traversal operations will cause races in > > the RCU lookups and result in incorrectly using freed inodes instead > > of failing the lookup and creating a new one. > > > > So I don't think this is a good idea at all... > > > > Hello, Dave: > > Thanks for your explanation. > > Though I can't fully understand it, your concern seems to be that > RCU inode lookup will be bothered by this change. But we do not have > RCU inode lookup in VFS: inode lookup is done by rather a tranditional > way. Ah, I'd forgotten that neither of these RCU-based lookups ever got merged: https://lkml.org/lkml/2010/6/23/397 http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1056494 That, however, is the approach that the inode caches shoul dbe moving towards - RCU lookups to reduce locking, not changing i_lock/i_state atomicity that has been designed to facilitate RCU safe lookups... > XFS gives me the impression that it implements its own inode cache. > There may be such thing there. I have little knowledge on XFS, but I > guess it's unlikely impacted by the change of code implementing VFS > inode cache. Yeah, I dropped the generic inode hash RCU conversion - the SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU was proving to be rather complex, and I didn't have any motiviation to see it through because I'd already converted XFs to avoid the global inode_hash_lock and use RCU lookups on it's internal inode cache... > As far as I can see, RCU inode free is for RCU dentry lookup, which > seems have nothing to do with 'detect a freed inode'. If you know nothing of the history of this, then it might seem that way > Taking i_lock in these > places looks like to me a result of following old lock scheme blindly when > breaking the big global inode lock. The i_state/i_hash_list/i_lock relationship was created specifically during the inode_lock breakup to allow us to guarantee that certain fields of the inode are unchanging without needing to take multiple nested locks: $ gl -n 1 250df6e commit 250df6ed274d767da844a5d9f05720b804240197 Author: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx> Date: Tue Mar 22 22:23:36 2011 +1100 fs: protect inode->i_state with inode->i_lock Protect inode state transitions and validity checks with the inode->i_lock. This enables us to make inode state transitions independently of the inode_lock and is the first step to peeling away the inode_lock from the code. This requires that __iget() is done atomically with i_state checks during list traversals so that we don't race with another thread marking the inode I_FREEING between the state check and grabbing the reference. Also remove the unlock_new_inode() memory barrier optimisation required to avoid taking the inode_lock when clearing I_NEW. Simplify the code by simply taking the inode->i_lock around the state change and wakeup. Because the wakeup is no longer tricky, remove the wake_up_inode() function and open code the wakeup where necessary. Signed-off-by: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx> Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> The inode hash lookup needs to check i_state atomically during the traversal so inodes being freed are skipped (e.g. I_FREEING, I_WILL_FREE). those i_state flags are set only with the i_lock held, and so inode hash lookups need to take the i_lock to guarantee the i_state field is correct. This inode data field synchronisation is separate to the cache hash list traversal protection. The only way to do this is to have an inner lock (inode->i_lock) that protects both the inode->i_hash_list and inode->i_state fields, and a lock order that provides outer list traversal protections (inode_hash_lock). Whether the outer lock is the inode_hash_lock or rcu_read_lock(), the lock order and the data fields the locks are protecting are the same.... > Of course, maybe they are there for something. Could you speak > more about the race this change (patch 1,2?) brings up? Thank you. When you drop the lock from the i_state initialisation, you end up dropping the implicit unlock->lock memory barrier that the inode->i_lock provides. i.e. you get this in iget_locked(): thread 1 thread 2 lock(inode_hash_lock) for_each_hash_item() inode->i_state = I_NEW hash_list_insert <finds newly inserted inode> lock(inode->i_lock) unlock(inode->i_lock) unlock(inode_hash_lock) wait_on_inode() <see inode->i_state = 0 > <uses inode before initialisation is complete> IOWs, there is no unlock->lock transition occurring on any lock, so there are no implicit memory barriers in this code, and so other CPUs are not guaranteed to see the "inode->i_state = I_NEW" write that thread 2 did. The lock/unlock pair around this I_NEW assignment guarantees that thread 1 will see the change to i_state correctly. So even without RCU, dropping the i_lock from these i_state/hash insert/remove operations will result in races occurring... Seriously, if you want to improve the locking of this code, go back an resurrect the basic RCU hash traversal patches (i.e. Nick's original patch rather than my SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU based ones). That has much more benefit to many more workloads than just removing a non-global, uncontended locks like this patch set does. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx -- 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
