Re: [PATCH 08/12] superblock: introduce per-sb cache shrinker infrastructure

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Sat, Jun 04, 2011 at 03:19:40PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> > The iprune_sem removal is fine as soon as you have a per-sb shrinker
> > for the inodes which keeps an active reference on the superblock until
> > all the inodes are evicted.
> 
> I really don't like that.  Stuff keeping active refs, worse yet doing that
> asynchronously...  Shrinkers should *not* do that.  Just grab a passive
> ref (i.e. bump s_count), try grab s_umount (shared) and if that thing still
> has ->s_root while we hold s_umount, go ahead.  Unregister either at the
> end of generic_shutdown_super() or from deactivate_locked_super(), between
> the calls of ->kill_sb() and put_filesystem().

PS: shrinkers should not acquire active refs; more specifically, they should
not _drop_ active refs, lest they end up dropping the last active one and
trigger unregistering a shrinker for superblock in question.  From inside of
->shrink(), with shrinker_rwsem held by caller.  Deadlock...

--
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>


[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [ECOS]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]