Re: [PATCH 04/19] fs: Implement lazy LRU updates for inodes.

[Nick Piggin]

On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 12:59:30PM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 08:29:16PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 07:13:58PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > @@ -502,11 +527,15 @@ static void prune_icache(int nr_to_scan)
> > >  			iput(inode);
> > >  			spin_lock(&inode_lock);
> > >  
> > > -			if (inode != list_entry(inode_unused.next,
> > > -						struct inode, i_list))
> > > -				continue;	/* wrong inode or list_empty */
> > > -			if (!can_unuse(inode))
> > > +			/*
> > > +			 * if we can't reclaim this inode immediately, give it
> > > +			 * another pass through the free list so we don't spin
> > > +			 * on it.
> > > +			 */
> > > +			if (!can_unuse(inode)) {
> > > +				list_move(&inode->i_list, &inode_unused);
> > >  				continue;
> > > +			}
> > >  		}
> > >  		list_move(&inode->i_list, &freeable);
> > >  		WARN_ON(inode->i_state & I_NEW);
> > 
> > This is a bug, actually 2 bugs, which is why I omitted it in the version
> > you picked up. I agree we want the optimisation though, so I've added it
> > back in my tree.
> > 
> > After you iput() and then re take the inode lock, you can't reference
> > the inode because you don't know what happened to it. You need to keep
> > that pointer check to verify it is still there.
> 
> I don't think the pointer check will work either.  By the time we retake
> the lru lock the inode might already have been reaped through a call
> to invalidate_inodes.  There's no way we can do anything with it after

I don't think you're right. If we re take inode_lock, ensure it is on
the LRU, and call the can_unuse checks, there is no more problem than
the regular loop taking items from the LRU, AFAIKS.

> iput.  What we could do is using variant of can_unuse to decide to move
> the inode to the front of the lru before doing the iput.  That way
> we'll get to it next after retaking the lru lock if it's still there.

This might actually be the better approach anyway (even for upstream)
-- it means we don't have to worry about the "check head element"
heuristic of the LRU check which could get false negatives if there is
a lot of concurrency on the LRU.


--
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/