Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-40622-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.48.161 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.48.161;
Message-ID: <e3548c86-7422-432c-8b72-8de99fa9772f@efficios.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2024 15:24:17 -0500
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: [RESEND] [PATCH] eventfs: Have inodes have unique inode numbers
Content-Language: en-US
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>, LKML
 <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
 Linux Trace Kernel <linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Cc: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>,
 Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>, Ajay Kaher
 <ajay.kaher@broadcom.com>, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>,
 linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
 Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
References: <20240126151251.74cb9285@gandalf.local.home>
From: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>
In-Reply-To: <20240126151251.74cb9285@gandalf.local.home>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 2024-01-26 15:12, Steven Rostedt wrote:
[...]
> diff --git a/fs/tracefs/inode.c b/fs/tracefs/inode.c
> index e1b172c0e091..2187be6d7b23 100644
> --- a/fs/tracefs/inode.c
> +++ b/fs/tracefs/inode.c
> @@ -223,13 +223,41 @@ static const struct inode_operations tracefs_file_inode_operations = {
>   	.setattr	= tracefs_setattr,
>   };
>   
> +/* Copied from get_next_ino() but adds allocation for multiple inodes */
> +#define LAST_INO_BATCH 1024
> +#define LAST_INO_MASK (~(LAST_INO_BATCH - 1))
> +static DEFINE_PER_CPU(unsigned int, last_ino);
> +
> +unsigned int tracefs_get_next_ino(int files)
> +{
> +	unsigned int *p = &get_cpu_var(last_ino);
> +	unsigned int res = *p;
> +
> +#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> +	/* Check if adding files+1 overflows */

How does it handle a @files input where:

* (files+1 > LAST_INO_BATCH) ?

* (files+1 == LAST_INO_BATCH) ?

> +	if (unlikely(!res || (res & LAST_INO_MASK) != ((res + files + 1) & LAST_INO_MASK))) {
> +		static atomic_t shared_last_ino;
> +		int next = atomic_add_return(LAST_INO_BATCH, &shared_last_ino);
> +
> +		res = next - LAST_INO_BATCH;
> +	}
> +#endif
> +
> +	res++;
> +	/* get_next_ino should not provide a 0 inode number */
> +	if (unlikely(!res))
> +		res++;

I suspect that bumping this res++ in the 0 case can cause inode range
reservation issues at (files+1 == LAST_INO_BATCH-1).

Thanks,

Mathieu

> +	*p = res + files;
> +	put_cpu_var(last_ino);
> +	return res;
> +}

-- 
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
https://www.efficios.com