On thu, 16 May 2013 14:15:52 +0800, Liu Bo wrote:
> On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 01:34:11PM +0800, Miao Xie wrote:
>> On Thu, 16 May 2013 13:15:57 +0800, Liu Bo wrote:
>>> On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 12:31:11PM +0800, Miao Xie wrote:
>>>> On thu, 16 May 2013 11:36:46 +0800, Liu Bo wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 03:48:20PM +0800, Miao Xie wrote:
>>>>>> The grab/put funtions will be used in the next patch, which need grab
>>>>>> the root object and ensure it is not freed. We use reference counter
>>>>>> instead of the srcu lock is to aovid blocking the memory reclaim task,
>>>>>> which invokes synchronize_srcu().
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't think this is necessary, we put 'kfree(root)' because we really
>>>>> need to free them at the very end time, when there should be no inodes
>>>>> linking on the root(we should have cleaned all inodes out from it).
>>>>>
>>>>> So when we flush delalloc inodes and wait for ordered extents to finish,
>>>>> the root should be valid, otherwise someone is doing wrong things.
>>>>>
>>>>> And even with this grab_fs_root to avoid freeing root, it's just the
>>>>> root that remains in memory, all its attributes, like root->node,
>>>>> commit_root, root->inode_tree, are already NULL or empty.
>>>>
>>>> Please consider the case:
>>>> Task1 Task2 Cleaner
>>>> get the root
>>>> flush all delalloc inodes
>>>> drop subvolume
>>>> iput the last inode
>>>> move the root into the dead list
>>>> drop
>>>> subvolume
>>>>
>>>> kfree(root)
>>>> If Task1 accesses the root now, oops will happen.
>>>
>>> Then it's task1's fault, why it is not protected by subvol_srcu section when
>>> it's possible that someone like task2 sets root's refs to 0?
>>>
>>> synchronize_srcu(subvol_srcu) before adding root into dead root list is
>>> just for this race case, why do we need another?
>>
>> Please read my changelog.
>
> 'The memory reclaim task' in the changelog refers to
> iput
> -> inode_tree_del
> , right?
>
> I don't like special cases, this get/put is different from our usual way:
> if (atomic_dec_and_test(refs)) {
> kfree(A->a);
> kfree(A->b);
> kfree(A);
> }
>
> According to the pictured case, task1 may also access root->something.
"->something" are the member variants of root object, so the problem you worry
about
can not happen unless somebody misuse this mechanism in the future. But you can
not
ascribe the misuse to this patch.
> I must say that the patch itself looks harmless, the reason is not good
> enough.
I don't agree with you.
It is perishing that The memory reclaim task is blocked for a long time. We
should avoid
this problem.
Thanks
Miao
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
