lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Nov]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/3] dcache: add a new enum type for 'dentry_d_lock_class'
On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 03:20:11PM +0800, Greg KH wrote:

> > FWIW, I'm not sure it's a good solution. What are the rules for callers
> > of that thing, anyway? If it can be called when somebody is creating
> > more files in that subtree, we almost certainly will have massive
> > problems with the lifetimes of underlying objects...
> >
> > Could somebody familiar with debugfs explain how is that thing actually
> > used and what is required from/promised to its callers? I can try and
> > grep through the tree and guess what the rules are, but I've way too
> > much on my platter right now and I don't want to get sidetracked into yet
> > another tree-wide search and analysis session ;-/
>
> Yu wants to use simple_empty() in debugfs_remove_recursive() instead of
> manually checking:
> if (!list_empty(&child->d_subdirs)) {
>
> See patch 3 of this series for that change and why they feel it is
> needed:
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/1573788472-87426-4-git-send-email-yukuai3@huawei.com/
>
> As to if patch 3 really is needed, I'll leave that up to Yu given that I
> thought we had resolved these types of issues already a year or so ago.

What I'm asking is what concurrency warranties does the whole thing
(debugfs_remove_recursive()) have to deal with. IMO the overall
structure of the walk-and-remove the tree algorithm in there
is Not Nice(tm) and I'd like to understand if it needs to be kept
that way. And the locking is confused in there - it either locks
too much, or not enough.

So... can debugfs_remove_recursive() rely upon the lack of attempts to create
new entries inside the subtree it's trying to kill? If it can, the things
can be made simpler; if it can't, it's not locking enough; e.g. results of
simple_empty() on child won't be guaranteed to remain unchanged just as it
returns to caller.

What's more, the uses of simple_unlink()/simple_rmdir() there are not
imitiating the normal locking environment for ->unlink() and ->rmdir() resp. -
the victim's inode is not locked, so just for starters the call of simple_empty()
from simple_rmdir() itself is not guaranteed to give valid result.

I want to understand the overall situation. No argument, list_empty()
in there is BS, for many reasons. But I wonder if trying to keep the
current structure of the iterator _and_ the use of simple_rmdir()/simple_unlink()
is the right approach.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-11-15 14:17    [W:0.068 / U:0.240 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site