On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 08:05:54PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Jun 2013 12:49:09 +1000 Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > > > +{
> > > > + spin_lock(&lru->lock);
> > >
> > > OK, problems. Long experience has shown us that in-kernel container
> > > library code like this should not perform its own locking. Things like:
> > >
> > > - I want to call it from interrupts!
> > > - I want to use a mutex!
> > > - I want to use RCU!
> >
> > Wrap them around the outside of all your LRU operations, then.
> >
> > > - I already hold a lock and don't need this code to take another one!
> >
> > The internal lru lock is for simplicity of implementation.
> >
> > > - I need to sleep in my isolate callback, but the library code is
> > > holding a spinlock!
> >
> > The isolate callback gets passed the spinlock that it is holding
> > precisely so the callback can drop it and do sleeping operations.
>
> As I said, "Long experience has shown". These restrictions reduce the
> usefulness of this code.
Only if you want generic, "use for absolutely anything"
functionality.
This code isn't "use for absolutely anything" infrastructure - it's
implementing a specific design pattern that is repeated over and
over again in the kernel in a generic, abstracted manner. It solves
one problem, not an abstract class of problems. The fact is that
this one problem is solved in 15 different ways, s
> > > - I want to test lru.nr_items in a non-racy fashion, but to do that I
> > > have to take a lib/-private spinlock!
> >
> > Nobody should be peeking at the internals of the list structures.
> > That's just completely broken. Use the APIs that are provided
>
> Those APIs don't work. It isn't possible for callers to get an exact
> count, unless they provide redundant external locking. This problem is
> a consequence of the decision to perform lib-internal locking.
There hasn't been a requirement for an exact count. There never has
been. The shrinkers certainly don't need one, and I can't think of
any reason why you'd need a exact count...
> > The current implementation is designed to be basic and obviously
> > correct, not some wacky, amazingly optimised code that nobody but
> > the original author can understand.
>
> Implementations which expect caller-provided locking are simpler.
In some situations, yes.
> > > This is a little bit strange, because one could legitimately do
> > >
> > > list_del(item); /* from my private list */
> > > list_lru_add(lru, item);
> > >
> > > but this interface forced me to do a needless lru_del_init().
> >
> > How do you know what list the item is on in list_lru_add()? We have
> > to know to get the accounting right. i.e. if it is already on the
> > LRU and we remove it and the re-add it, the number of items on the
> > list doesn't change. but it it's on some private list, then we have
> > to increment the number of items on the LRU list.
> >
> > So, if it's already on a list, we cannot determine what the correct
> > thing to do it, and hence the callers of list_lru_add() must ensure
> > that the item is not on a private list before trying to add it to
> > the LRU.
>
> It isn't "already on a list" - the caller just removed it!
Sorry, then I didn't understand what you question is? Why would you
need to call lru_del_init() for an object on a private list?
Oh, you meant the list_del_init()? In which case, your item won't
get added to the LRU. Too bad, so sad. Needs documentation.
> > > Addendum: having now read through the evolution of lib/list_lru.c, it's
> > > pretty apparent that this code is highly specific to the inode and
> > > dcache shrinkers and is unlikely to see applications elsewhere. So
> > > hrm, perhaps we're kinda kidding ourselves by putting it in lib/ at
> > > all.
> >
> > In this patch set, it replaces the LRU in the xfs buffer cache, the
> > LRU in the XFS dquot cache, and I've got patches that use it in the
> > XFS inode cache as well. And they were all drop-in replacements,
> > just like for the inode and dentry caches. It's hard to claim that
> > it's so specific to the inode/dentry caches when there are at least
> > 3 other LRUs that were pretty trivial to convert for use...
> >
> > The whole point of the patchset is to introduce infrastructure that
> > is generically useful. Sure, it might start out looking like the
> > thing that it was derived from, but we've got to start somewhere.
> > Given that there are 5 different users already, it's obviously
> > already more than just usable for the inode and dentry caches.
> >
> > The only reason that there haven't been more subsystems converted is
> > that we are concentrating on getting what we alreayd have merged
> > first....
>
> I'm not objecting to the code per-se - I'm sure it's appropriate to the
> current callsites. But these restrictions do reduce its overall
> applicability. And I do agree that it's not worth generalizing it
> because of what-if scenarios.
I'm not disagreeing with you about the restrictions and how they
limit what it can be used for. But as I explained about there is a
specific design patther/use case for these lists - that of an
independent list based LRU that tightly integrates with the shrinker
infrastructure.
> Why was it called "lru", btw? iirc it's actually a "stack" (or
> "queue"?) and any lru functionality is actually implemented externally.
Because it's a bunch of infrastructure and helper functions that
callers use to implement a list based LRU that tightly integrates
with the shrinker infrastructure. ;)
I'm open to a better name - something just as short and concise
would be nice ;)
> There is no "list_lru_touch()".
Different LRU implementations have different methods of marking
objects referenced and reclaiming them, and so it is kept external.
e.g. inode/dentries use a single flag within the object. The XFS
buffer cache uses a LRU reference count to do heirarchical
referencing of objects, and so that isn't implemented within the
list infrstructure itself. All the infrastructure provides is the
lists itself and methods to add, remove and scan the lists; Anything
specific to an object on the list needs to be managed externally.
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>