Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Tue, 19 Nov 2019 10:13:44 -0500
From:   Brian Foster <bfoster@redhat.com>
To:     Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
Cc:     linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 28/28] xfs: rework unreferenced inode lookups
Message-ID: <20191119151344.GD10763@bfoster>
References: <20191031234618.15403-1-david@fromorbit.com>
 <20191031234618.15403-29-david@fromorbit.com>
 <20191106221846.GE37080@bfoster>
 <20191114221602.GJ4614@dread.disaster.area>
 <20191115172600.GC55854@bfoster>
 <20191118010047.GS4614@dread.disaster.area>
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20191118010047.GS4614@dread.disaster.area>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.12.1 (2019-06-15)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 12:00:47PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 12:26:00PM -0500, Brian Foster wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 09:16:02AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > On Wed, Nov 06, 2019 at 05:18:46PM -0500, Brian Foster wrote:
> > > If so, most of this patch will go away....
> > >=20
> > > > > +=09 * attached to the buffer so we don't need to do anything mor=
e here.
> > > > >  =09 */
> > > > > -=09if (ip !=3D free_ip) {
> > > > > -=09=09if (!xfs_ilock_nowait(ip, XFS_ILOCK_EXCL)) {
> > > > > -=09=09=09rcu_read_unlock();
> > > > > -=09=09=09delay(1);
> > > > > -=09=09=09goto retry;
> > > > > -=09=09}
> > > > > -
> > > > > -=09=09/*
> > > > > -=09=09 * Check the inode number again in case we're racing with
> > > > > -=09=09 * freeing in xfs_reclaim_inode().  See the comments in th=
at
> > > > > -=09=09 * function for more information as to why the initial che=
ck is
> > > > > -=09=09 * not sufficient.
> > > > > -=09=09 */
> > > > > -=09=09if (ip->i_ino !=3D inum) {
> > > > > +=09if (__xfs_iflags_test(ip, XFS_ISTALE)) {
> > > >=20
> > > > Is there a correctness reason for why we move the stale check to un=
der
> > > > ilock (in both iflush/ifree)?
> > >=20
> > > It's under the i_flags_lock, and so I moved it up under the lookup
> > > hold of the i_flags_lock so we don't need to cycle it again.
> > >=20
> >=20
> > Yeah, but in both cases it looks like it moved to under the ilock as
> > well, which comes after i_flags_lock. IOW, why grab ilock for stale
> > inodes when we're just going to skip them?
>=20
> Because I was worrying about serialising against reclaim before
> changing the state of the inode. i.e. if the inode has already been
> isolated by not yet disposed of, we shouldn't touch the inode state
> at all. Serialisation against reclaim in this patch is via the
> ILOCK, hence we need to do that before setting ISTALE....
>=20

Yeah, I think my question still isn't clear... I'm not talking about
setting ISTALE. The code I referenced above is where we test for it and
skip the inode if it is already set. For example, the code referenced
above in xfs_ifree_get_one_inode() currently does the following with
respect to i_flags_lock, ILOCK and XFS_ISTALE:

=09...
=09spin_lock(i_flags_lock)
=09xfs_ilock_nowait(XFS_ILOCK_EXCL)
=09if !XFS_ISTALE
=09=09skip
=09set XFS_ISTALE
=09...

The reclaim isolate code does this, however:

=09spin_trylock(i_flags_lock)
=09if !XFS_ISTALE
=09=09skip
=09xfs_ilock(XFS_ILOCK_EXCL)
=09...=09

So my question is why not do something like the following in the
_get_one_inode() case?

=09...
=09spin_lock(i_flags_lock)
=09if !XFS_ISTALE
=09=09skip
=09xfs_ilock_nowait(XFS_ILOCK_EXCL)
=09set XFS_ISTALE
=09...

IOW, what is the need, if any, to acquire ilock in the iflush/ifree
paths before testing for XFS_ISTALE? Is there some specific intermediate
state I'm missing or is this just unintentional? The reason I ask is
ilock failure triggers that ugly delay(1) and retry thing, so it seems
slightly weird to allow that for a stale inode we're ultimately going to
skip (regardless of whether that would actually ever occur).

Brian

> IOWs, ISTALE is not protected by ILOCK, we just can't modify the
> inode state until after we've gained the ILOCK to protect against
> reclaim....
>=20
> Cheers,
>=20
> Dave.
> --=20
> Dave Chinner
> david@fromorbit.com
>=20