Re: [PATCH] dcache: fix d_splice_alias handling of aliases
From: J. Bruce Fields
Date: Fri Jan 17 2014 - 10:39:57 EST
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 04:17:23AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 10:17:49AM -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > From: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > d_splice_alias can create duplicate directory aliases (in the !new
> > case), or (in the new case) d_move without holding appropriate locks.
> > d_materialise_unique deals with both of these problems. (The latter
> > seems to be dealt by trylocks (see __d_unalias), which look like they
> > could cause spurious lookup failures--but that's at least better than
> > corrupting the dcache.)
> I'm a bit worried about those spurious failures, maybe we should
> retry in that case?
Maybe so. I'm not sure how. d_materialise_unique is called from lookup
and we'd need to at least drop the parent i_mutex to give a concurrent
rename a chance to progress.
I think NFS or cluster filesystem clients could hit this case with:
host A host B
process 1 process 1 process 2
--------- --------- ---------
mv foo/X bar/
stat bar/X mv baz qux
When (B,1) looks up X in bar it finds that X still has an alias in foo,
tries to rename that alias to bar/X, but can't because the current
baz->qux rename is holding the rename mutex. So __d_unalias and the
lookup return -EBUSY.
None of those operations are particularly fast, so I'm a bit surprised
we haven't already heard complaints. I must be missing some reason this
doesn't happen. I guess I should set up a test.
> Also looking over the changes I wonder if the explicit cecking for
> aliases for every non-directory might have a major performance impact,
> all the dcache growling already was a major issues in NFS workloads
> years ago and I dumb it's become any better.
This only happens on the first (uncached) lookup. So we've already
acquired a bunch of locks and probably done a round trip to a disk or a
server--is walking a (typically short) list really something to worry
> Also looking at this area I'd like to suggest that if you end up
> merging the two I'd continue using the d_splice_alias name and
> calling conventions.
OK, I guess I don't care which one we keep.
> Also the inode == NULL case really should be split out from
> d_materialise_unique into a separate helper. It shares almost no
> code, is entirely undocumented to the point that I don't really
> understand what the purpose is, and the only caller that can get
> there (fuse) already branches around that case in the caller anyway.
I think I see what you mean, I can fix that.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/