Re: dcache shrink list corruption?

[Linus Torvalds]

On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 9:26 PM, Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> See vfs.git#dentry_kill-3; warning - this is completely untested and I would
> really like comments on spinning case there (i.e. the one where select_collect()
> finds some stuff already on some other shrink list and nothing with zero
> refcount that wouldn't be there).

I'm not seeing why you say that there can be no other shrinkers active
during umount (that whole "buggered" thing).

Sure, umount itself should be serialized by the sb lock, so there
should be only one umount dentry collector. But why wouldn't there be
shrinkers active due to memory pressure?

generic_unmount_super() is called by ->kill_sb(), which is done
*before* the superblock shrinker is unregistered  So any memory
pressure during that will cause dentries to be shrunk other ways.

What am I missing?

                Linus
--
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/