On Sun, 2023-04-16 at 08:21 +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > On 2023/04/16 3:40, Jeff Layton wrote: > > On Sun, 2023-04-16 at 02:11 +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > > > On 2023/04/16 1:13, Chuck Lever III wrote: > > > > > On Apr 15, 2023, at 7:07 AM, Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Since GFP_KERNEL is GFP_NOFS | __GFP_FS, usage like GFP_KERNEL | GFP_NOFS > > > > > does not make sense. Drop __GFP_FS flag in order to avoid deadlock. > > > > > > > > The server side threads run in process context. GFP_KERNEL > > > > is safe to use here -- as Jeff said, this code is not in > > > > the server's reclaim path. Plenty of other call sites in > > > > the NFS server code use GFP_KERNEL. > > > > > > GFP_KERNEL memory allocation calls filesystem's shrinker functions > > > because of __GFP_FS flag. My understanding is > > > > > > Whether this code is in memory reclaim path or not is irrelevant. > > > Whether memory reclaim path might hold lock or not is relevant. > > > > > > . Therefore, question is, does nfsd hold i_rwsem during memory reclaim path? > > > > > > > No. At the time of these allocations, the i_rwsem is not held. > > Excuse me? nfsd_getxattr()/nfsd_listxattr() _are_ holding i_rwsem > via inode_lock_shared(inode) before kvmalloc(GFP_KERNEL | GFP_NOFS) allocation. > That's why > > /* > * We're holding i_rwsem - use GFP_NOFS. > */ > > is explicitly there in nfsd_listxattr() side. > > If memory reclaim path (directly or indirectly via locking dependency) involves > inode_lock_shared(inode)/inode_lock(inode), it is not safe to use __GFP_FS flag. > (cc'ing Frank V. who wrote this code and -fsdevel) I stand corrected! You're absolutely right that it's taking the i_rwsem for read there. That seems pretty weird, actually. I don't believe we need to hold the inode_lock to call vfs_getxattr or vfs_listxattr, and certainly nothing else under there requires it. Frank, was there some reason you decided you needed the inode_lock there? It looks like under the hood, the xattr code requires you to take it for write in setxattr and removexattr, but you don't need it at all in getxattr or listxattr. Go figure. If there's no reason to keep it there, then in addition to removing GFP_NOFS there I think we probably ought to just remove the inode_lock from nfsd_getxattr and nfsd_listxattr altogether. Longer term, I wonder what the inode_lock is protecting in setxattr and removexattr operations, given that get and list don't require them? These are always delegated to the filesystem driver -- there is no generic xattr implementation. Maybe we ought to do a lock pushdown on those operations at some point? I'd bet that most of the setxattr/removexattr operations do their own locking and don't require the i_rwsem at all. -- Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx>
