Re: fs/dcache.c - BUG: soft lockup - CPU#5 stuck for 22s! [systemd-udevd:1667]

[Al Viro]

On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 04:14:15AM +0100, Al Viro wrote:

> As the matter of fact, let's try this instead - retry the same sucker
> immediately in case if trylocks fail.  Comments?

Better yet, let's take "move back to shrink list" into dentry_kill()
itself.  Then we get consistent locking rules for dentry_kill() and
instead of unlock_on_failure we simply pass it NULL or the shrink
list to put the sucker back.  Mika, could you test this one and see
if it fixes that livelock?  The difference in behaviour is that in
case of trylock failure we hit that sucker again without letting
it ride all the way around the list, same as we do for other dentry_kill()
callers.

Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
diff --git a/fs/dcache.c b/fs/dcache.c
index 42ae01e..77c95e5 100644
--- a/fs/dcache.c
+++ b/fs/dcache.c
@@ -448,7 +448,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(d_drop);
  * Returns dentry requiring refcount drop, or NULL if we're done.
  */
 static struct dentry *
-dentry_kill(struct dentry *dentry, int unlock_on_failure)
+dentry_kill(struct dentry *dentry, struct list_head *shrink_list)
 	__releases(dentry->d_lock)
 {
 	struct inode *inode;
@@ -464,10 +464,10 @@ dentry_kill(struct dentry *dentry, int unlock_on_failure)
 	inode = dentry->d_inode;
 	if (inode && !spin_trylock(&inode->i_lock)) {
 relock:
-		if (unlock_on_failure) {
-			spin_unlock(&dentry->d_lock);
-			cpu_relax();
-		}
+		if (shrink_list)
+			d_shrink_add(dentry, shrink_list);
+		spin_unlock(&dentry->d_lock);
+		cpu_relax();
 		return dentry; /* try again with same dentry */
 	}
 	if (!IS_ROOT(dentry))
@@ -579,7 +579,7 @@ repeat:
 	return;
 
 kill_it:
-	dentry = dentry_kill(dentry, 1);
+	dentry = dentry_kill(dentry, NULL);
 	if (dentry)
 		goto repeat;
 }
@@ -798,6 +798,7 @@ static void shrink_dentry_list(struct list_head *list)
 
 	while (!list_empty(list)) {
 		dentry = list_entry(list->prev, struct dentry, d_lru);
+again:
 		spin_lock(&dentry->d_lock);
 		/*
 		 * The dispose list is isolated and dentries are not accounted
@@ -815,23 +816,16 @@ static void shrink_dentry_list(struct list_head *list)
 			continue;
 		}
 
-		parent = dentry_kill(dentry, 0);
+		parent = dentry_kill(dentry, list);
 		/*
 		 * If dentry_kill returns NULL, we have nothing more to do.
 		 */
 		if (!parent)
 			continue;
 
-		if (unlikely(parent == dentry)) {
-			/*
-			 * trylocks have failed and d_lock has been held the
-			 * whole time, so it could not have been added to any
-			 * other lists. Just add it back to the shrink list.
-			 */
-			d_shrink_add(dentry, list);
-			spin_unlock(&dentry->d_lock);
-			continue;
-		}
+		 /* if trylocks have failed; just do it again */
+		if (unlikely(parent == dentry))
+			goto again;
 		/*
 		 * We need to prune ancestors too. This is necessary to prevent
 		 * quadratic behavior of shrink_dcache_parent(), but is also
@@ -840,7 +834,7 @@ static void shrink_dentry_list(struct list_head *list)
 		 */
 		dentry = parent;
 		while (dentry && !lockref_put_or_lock(&dentry->d_lockref))
-			dentry = dentry_kill(dentry, 1);
+			dentry = dentry_kill(dentry, NULL);
 	}
 }
 
--
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/