Re: [PATCH 2/2] tracefs: Don't overlay 'struct inode'

[Mathias Krause]

On 07.08.24 15:35, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Wed,  7 Aug 2024 13:51:39 +0200
> Mathias Krause <minipli@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
>> diff --git a/fs/tracefs/internal.h b/fs/tracefs/internal.h
>> index f704d8348357..a7769857962a 100644
>> --- a/fs/tracefs/internal.h
>> +++ b/fs/tracefs/internal.h
>> @@ -10,10 +10,8 @@ enum {
>>  };
>>  
>>  struct tracefs_inode {
>> -	union {
>> -		struct inode            vfs_inode;
>> -		struct rcu_head		rcu;
>> -	};
>> +	struct inode		vfs_inode;
>> +	struct rcu_head		rcu;
> 
> I rather not make this structure any bigger for the rcu element that is not
> used until freed.

Uhm, at least for my config, it won't consume more memory, as the slab
object is big enough to cover up for the additional two machine words:

root@deb11-amd64:~# slabinfo tracefs_inode_cache

Slabcache: tracefs_inode_cache  Aliases:  0 Order :  3 Objects: 144
** Reclaim accounting active

Sizes (bytes)     Slabs              Debug                Memory
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Object :    1200  Total  :       6   Sanity Checks : Off  Total:  196608
SlabObj:    1328  Full   :       4   Redzoning     : Off  Used :  172800
SlabSiz:   32768  Partial:       0   Poisoning     : Off  Loss :   23808
Loss   :     128  CpuSlab:       2   Tracking      : Off  Lalig:   18432
Align  :       8  Objects:      24   Tracing       : Off  Lpadd:    5376
[...]

While the size of 'struct tracefs_inode' is 1200 bytes for my kernel
build (LOCKDEP bloats it quite a lot), the slab object size is 1328
bytes, i.e. 128 bytes wasted per object which can, for sure, cover up
for these additional members.

> 
>>  	/* The below gets initialized with memset_after(ti, 0, vfs_inode) */
>>  	struct list_head	list;
>>  	unsigned long           flags;
> 
> Perhaps:
> 
> diff --git a/fs/tracefs/internal.h b/fs/tracefs/internal.h
> index f704d8348357..ab6d6c3d835d 100644
> --- a/fs/tracefs/internal.h
> +++ b/fs/tracefs/internal.h
> @@ -10,12 +10,12 @@ enum {
>  };
>  
>  struct tracefs_inode {
> +	struct inode            vfs_inode;
> +	/* The below gets initialized with memset_after(ti, 0, vfs_inode) */
>  	union {
> -		struct inode            vfs_inode;
> +		struct list_head	list;
>  		struct rcu_head		rcu;
>  	};
> -	/* The below gets initialized with memset_after(ti, 0, vfs_inode) */
> -	struct list_head	list;
>  	unsigned long           flags;
>  	void                    *private;
>  };

I'd rather not exchange trashing one RCU-walked list for another. Or how
will this play out for the RCU walk in tracefs_apply_options() if
there's a concurrent call to tracefs_free_inode() which will now trash
the list_head tracefs_apply_options() is walking over?

Thanks,
Mathias