Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Date | Tue, 18 Oct 2005 19:26:46 -0700 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] fix nr_unused accounting, and avoid recursing in iput with I_WILL_FREE set |
| |
Chris Mason <mason@suse.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 18, 2005 at 06:15:48PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > > Well according to my assertion (below), the inode in __sync_single_inode() > > > > cannot have a zero refcount, so the whole if() statement is never executed. > > > > > > generic_forget_inode->write_inode_now->__writeback_single_inode-> > > > __sync_single_inode > > > > oshit. > > When does this ever happen? Just for private inodes released during > put_super right?
I suppose so, yes.
> > > > > We do have I_WILL_FREE, but i_count will be zero. > > > > yup. > > > > > > > > > > The thinking behind that increment is that __sync_single_inode() has just > > > > taken a dirty, zero-refcount inode and has cleaned it. A dirty inode > > > > cannot have previously been on inode_unused, hence we now are newly moving > > > > it to inode_unused. > > > > > > nr_unused doesn't seem to count the number of inodes on the unused list. > > > It is actually counting the number of inodes whose i_count is 0. See > > > generic_forget_inode and invalidate_list to see what I mean. > > > > hm, OK. It'd be nice to make that more explicit. Something like this? > > Well, I can't quite convince myself it is wrong, but when > (!sb || (sb->s_flags & MS_ACTIVE), we're dropping the > inode_lock with an inode with i_count == 0 and nr_unused hasn't been > incremented. > > So, if someone (sync_sb_inodes?) comes in and runs __iget, > the counts end up wrong. Then again, whoever ran __iget would also run > iput and things would go horribly wrong anyway.
Nope, it's equivalent:
--- devel/fs/inode.c~generic_forget_inode-nr_unused-cleanup 2005-10-18 18:13:22.000000000 -0700 +++ devel-akpm/fs/inode.c 2005-10-18 18:13:57.000000000 -0700 @@ -1067,8 +1067,8 @@ static void generic_forget_inode(struct if (!hlist_unhashed(&inode->i_hash)) { if (!(inode->i_state & (I_DIRTY|I_LOCK))) list_move(&inode->i_list, &inode_unused); - inodes_stat.nr_unused++; if (!sb || (sb->s_flags & MS_ACTIVE)) { + inodes_stat.nr_unused++; /* One more 0-ref inode */ spin_unlock(&inode_lock); return; } @@ -1077,7 +1077,6 @@ static void generic_forget_inode(struct write_inode_now(inode, 1); spin_lock(&inode_lock); inode->i_state &= ~I_WILL_FREE; - inodes_stat.nr_unused--; hlist_del_init(&inode->i_hash); } list_del_init(&inode->i_list); _
> Did I mention the part where Andrea and I are hunting a bug where the > count of unused inodes goes negative and the everyone ends up spinning > in shrink_icache_memory?
No.
> Andrea's patch doesn't fix the spinning, but > it might have fixed the unused inode count going negative. We're > waiting for another reproduce on the ppc64 race monster.
I assume you have BUG_ON(inode_stat.nr_unused < 0)s in there everywhere?
In fact WARN_ON(inode_stat.nr_unused < 100) might be better - something's obviously doing a bogus decrement a lot of times.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |