Received-SPF: softfail (google.com: domain of transitioning linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org does not designate 23.128.96.19 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.19;
Date:   Wed, 16 Feb 2022 03:27:39 +0000
From:   Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
To:     Stephen Brennan <stephen.s.brennan@oracle.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
        Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] dcache: sweep cached negative dentries to the end
 of list of siblings
Message-ID: <YgxvK03Q3wBVfLYS@zeniv-ca.linux.org.uk>
References: <20220209231406.187668-1-stephen.s.brennan@oracle.com>
 <20220209231406.187668-2-stephen.s.brennan@oracle.com>
 <YgSjo5wascR9mfnA@zeniv-ca.linux.org.uk>
 <875ypf8s5m.fsf@stepbren-lnx.us.oracle.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <875ypf8s5m.fsf@stepbren-lnx.us.oracle.com>
Sender: Al Viro <viro@ftp.linux.org.uk>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 06:24:53PM -0800, Stephen Brennan wrote:

> It seems to me that, if we had taken a reference on child by
> incrementing the reference count prior to unlocking it, then
> dentry_unlist could never have been called, since we would never have
> made it into __dentry_kill. child would still be on the list, and any
> cursor (or sweep_negative) list updates would now be reflected in
> child->d_child.next. But dput is definitely not safe while holding a
> lock on a parent dentry (even more so now thanks to my patch), so that
> is out of the question.
> 
> Would dput_to_list be an appropriate solution to that issue? We can
> maintain a dispose list in d_walk and then for any dput which really
> drops the refcount to 0, we can handle them after d_walk is done. It
> shouldn't be that many dentries anyway.

	Interesting idea, but... what happens to behaviour of e.g.
shrink_dcache_parent()?  You'd obviously need to modify the test in
select_collect(), but then the selected dentries become likely candidates
for d_walk() itself wanting to move them over to its internal shrink list.
OTOH, __dput_to_list() will just decrement the count and skip the sucker
if it's already on a shrink list...

	It might work, but it really needs a careful analysis wrt.
parallel d_walk().  What happens when you have two threads hitting
shrink_dcache_parent() on two different places, one being an ancestor
of another?  That can happen in parallel, and currently it does work
correctly, but that's fairly delicate and there are places where a minor
change could turn O(n) into O(n^2), etc.

	Let me think about that - I'm not saying it's hopeless, and it
would be nice to avoid that subtlety in dentry_unlist(), but there
might be dragons.