list_lru: remove special case function list_lru_dispose_all.
The list_lru implementation has one function, list_lru_dispose_all, with only one user (the dentry code). At first, such function appears to make sense because we are really not interested in the result of isolating each dentry separately - all of them are going away anyway. However, it's implementation is buggy in the following way: When we call list_lru_dispose_all in fs/dcache.c, we scan all dentries marking them with DCACHE_SHRINK_LIST. However, this is done without the nlru->lock taken. The imediate result of that is that someone else may add or remove the dentry from the LRU at the same time. When list_lru_del happens in that scenario we will see an element that is not yet marked with DCACHE_SHRINK_LIST (even though it will be in the future) and obviously remove it from an lru where the element no longer is. Since list_lru_dispose_all will in effect count down nlru's nr_items and list_lru_del will do the same, this will lead to an imbalance. The solution for this would not be so simple: we can obviously just keep the lru_lock taken, but then we have no guarantees that we will be able to acquire the dentry lock (dentry->d_lock). To properly solve this, we need a communication mechanism between the lru and dentry code, so they can coordinate this with each other. Such mechanism already exists in the form of the list_lru_walk_cb callback. So it is possible to construct a dcache-side prune function that does the right thing only by calling list_lru_walk in a loop until no more dentries are available. With only one user, plus the fact that a sane solution for the problem would involve boucing between dcache and list_lru anyway, I see little justification to keep the special case list_lru_dispose_all in tree. Signed-off-by: Glauber Costa <glommer@openvz.org> Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz> Acked-by: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
This commit is contained in:
@@ -112,48 +112,6 @@ restart:
|
||||
}
|
||||
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(list_lru_walk_node);
|
||||
|
||||
static unsigned long list_lru_dispose_all_node(struct list_lru *lru, int nid,
|
||||
list_lru_dispose_cb dispose)
|
||||
{
|
||||
struct list_lru_node *nlru = &lru->node[nid];
|
||||
LIST_HEAD(dispose_list);
|
||||
unsigned long disposed = 0;
|
||||
|
||||
spin_lock(&nlru->lock);
|
||||
while (!list_empty(&nlru->list)) {
|
||||
list_splice_init(&nlru->list, &dispose_list);
|
||||
disposed += nlru->nr_items;
|
||||
nlru->nr_items = 0;
|
||||
node_clear(nid, lru->active_nodes);
|
||||
spin_unlock(&nlru->lock);
|
||||
|
||||
dispose(&dispose_list);
|
||||
|
||||
spin_lock(&nlru->lock);
|
||||
}
|
||||
spin_unlock(&nlru->lock);
|
||||
return disposed;
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
unsigned long list_lru_dispose_all(struct list_lru *lru,
|
||||
list_lru_dispose_cb dispose)
|
||||
{
|
||||
unsigned long disposed;
|
||||
unsigned long total = 0;
|
||||
int nid;
|
||||
|
||||
do {
|
||||
disposed = 0;
|
||||
for_each_node_mask(nid, lru->active_nodes) {
|
||||
disposed += list_lru_dispose_all_node(lru, nid,
|
||||
dispose);
|
||||
}
|
||||
total += disposed;
|
||||
} while (disposed != 0);
|
||||
|
||||
return total;
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
int list_lru_init(struct list_lru *lru)
|
||||
{
|
||||
int i;
|
||||
|
Reference in New Issue
Block a user