> @@ -278,7 +325,12 @@ void generic_shutdown_super(struct super_block *sb)
> {
> const struct super_operations *sop = sb->s_op;
>
> -
> + /*
> + * shut down the shrinker first so we know that there are no possible
> + * races when shrinking the dcache or icache. Removes the need for
> + * external locking to prevent such races.
> + */
> + unregister_shrinker(&sb->s_shrink);
> if (sb->s_root) {
> shrink_dcache_for_umount(sb);
> sync_filesystem(sb);
What it means is that shrinker_rwsem now nests inside ->s_umount... IOW,
if any ->shrink() gets stuck, so does every generic_shutdown_super().
I'm still not convinced it's a good idea - especially since _this_
superblock will be skipped anyway. Is there any good reason to evict
shrinker that early? Note that doing that after ->s_umount is dropped
should be reasonably safe - your shrinker will see that superblock is
doomed if it's called anywhere in that window...
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>