[lkml]   [2010]   [Feb]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH][RFC] %pd - for printing dentry name
    On Mon, Feb 01, 2010 at 11:18:47PM +0000, Al Viro wrote:
    > On Mon, Feb 01, 2010 at 02:37:32PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
    > > > * don't use %pd under dentry->d_lock, use dentry-> instead; in
    > > > that case it *is* safe. Incidentally, ->d_lock isn't held a lot.
    > >
    > > I realize we can just call it a rule, and yes, d_lock is held much less
    > > than something like console_lock etc that we've had ABBA issues with, but
    > > still..
    > > Quite frankly, I'd _much_ rather see something like just always freeing
    > > the dentry names (when they aren't inlined) using RCU. The VFS layer quite
    > > possibly would want to do that anyway at some point (eg Nick's VFS
    > > scalability patches), and then we could make it just a RCU read-lock or
    > > whatever (interrupt disable, what-not) instead.
    > >
    > > And I'm much happier with printk doing that kind of thing, and wouldn't
    > > have issues with that kind of much weaker locking.
    > Ehh... RCU will save you from stepping on freed memory, but it still will
    > leave the joy of half-updated string with length out of sync with it, etc.
    > We probably can get away with that, but we'll have to be a lot more careful
    > with the order of updating these suckers in d_move_locked
    > I don't know... Note that if we end up adding something extra to struct
    > dentry, we might as well just add *another* spinlock, taken only under
    > ->d_lock and only in two places in dcache.c that change d_name. That kind
    > of thing is trivial to enforce (just grep over the tree once in a while)
    > and if it shares the cacheline with d_lock, we shouldn't get any real overhead
    > in d_move()/d_materialise_unique(). I'm not particulary fond of that variant,
    > but it's at least guaranteed to be devoid of subtleties.
    > If RCU folks can come up with a sane suggestions that would be robust and
    > wouldn't bloat dentry - sure, I'm all for it. If not...

    Here is an approximation that might inspire someone to come up with a
    real solution.

    One approach would be to store the name length with the name, so that
    struct qstr loses the "len" field, and so that its "name" field points
    to a struct that has a "len" field followed by an array of const
    unsigned char. That way, the name and length are closely associated.
    When you pick up a struct qstr's "name" pointer, you are guaranteed to
    get a length that matches the name.


    o In theory, this leaves the length of the dentry unchanged, but
    alignment is a problem on 64-bit systems. Also, the long names
    gain an extra four bytes.

    o If you get a pointer to the d_iname small-name field, rename
    might still change the name out from under you. This could in
    theory be fixed by refusing to re-use the d_iname field until
    an RCU grace period had elapsed (using an external structure
    instead). In practice, not sure if this is really a reasonable


    Thanx, Paul

     \ /
      Last update: 2010-02-02 07:55    [W:0.022 / U:16.088 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site