linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH v2 53/54] fs: remove I_LRU

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20250828-inklusive-glossar-1ec2e3ed79d2@brauner>
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2025 12:35:22 +0200
From: Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>
To: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
Cc: Josef Bacik <josef@...icpanda.com>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...com, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, amir73il@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 53/54] fs: remove I_LRU_ISOLATING flag

On Thu, Aug 28, 2025 at 10:26:50AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 26, 2025 at 11:39:53AM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
> > If the inode is on the LRU it has a full reference and thus no longer
> > needs to be pinned while it is being isolated.
> > 
> > Remove the I_LRU_ISOLATING flag and associated helper functions
> > (inode_pin_lru_isolating, inode_unpin_lru_isolating, and
> > inode_wait_for_lru_isolating) as they are no longer needed.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@...icpanda.com>
> 
> ....
> > @@ -745,34 +742,32 @@ is_uncached_acl(struct posix_acl *acl)
> >   * I_CACHED_LRU		Inode is cached because it is dirty or isn't shrinkable,
> >   *			and thus is on the s_cached_inode_lru list.
> >   *
> > - * __I_{SYNC,NEW,LRU_ISOLATING} are used to derive unique addresses to wait
> > - * upon. There's one free address left.
> > + * __I_{SYNC,NEW} are used to derive unique addresses to wait upon. There are
> > + * two free address left.
> >   */
> >  
> >  enum inode_state_bits {
> >  	__I_NEW			= 0U,
> > -	__I_SYNC		= 1U,
> > -	__I_LRU_ISOLATING	= 2U
> > +	__I_SYNC		= 1U
> >  };
> >  
> >  enum inode_state_flags_t {
> >  	I_NEW			= (1U << __I_NEW),
> >  	I_SYNC			= (1U << __I_SYNC),
> > -	I_LRU_ISOLATING         = (1U << __I_LRU_ISOLATING),
> > -	I_DIRTY_SYNC		= (1U << 3),
> > -	I_DIRTY_DATASYNC	= (1U << 4),
> > -	I_DIRTY_PAGES		= (1U << 5),
> > -	I_CLEAR			= (1U << 6),
> > -	I_LINKABLE		= (1U << 7),
> > -	I_DIRTY_TIME		= (1U << 8),
> > -	I_WB_SWITCH		= (1U << 9),
> > -	I_OVL_INUSE		= (1U << 10),
> > -	I_CREATING		= (1U << 11),
> > -	I_DONTCACHE		= (1U << 12),
> > -	I_SYNC_QUEUED		= (1U << 13),
> > -	I_PINNING_NETFS_WB	= (1U << 14),
> > -	I_LRU			= (1U << 15),
> > -	I_CACHED_LRU		= (1U << 16)
> > +	I_DIRTY_SYNC		= (1U << 2),
> > +	I_DIRTY_DATASYNC	= (1U << 3),
> > +	I_DIRTY_PAGES		= (1U << 4),
> > +	I_CLEAR			= (1U << 5),
> > +	I_LINKABLE		= (1U << 6),
> > +	I_DIRTY_TIME		= (1U << 7),
> > +	I_WB_SWITCH		= (1U << 8),
> > +	I_OVL_INUSE		= (1U << 9),
> > +	I_CREATING		= (1U << 10),
> > +	I_DONTCACHE		= (1U << 11),
> > +	I_SYNC_QUEUED		= (1U << 12),
> > +	I_PINNING_NETFS_WB	= (1U << 13),
> > +	I_LRU			= (1U << 14),
> > +	I_CACHED_LRU		= (1U << 15)
> >  };
> 
> This is a bit of a mess - we should reserve the first 4 bits for the
> waitable inode_state_bits right from the start and not renumber the
> other flag bits into that range. i.e. start the first non-waitable
> bit at bit 4. That way every time we add/remove a waitable bit, we
> don't have to rewrite the entire set of flags. i.e: something like:
> 
> enum inode_state_flags_t {
> 	I_NEW			= (1U << __I_NEW),
> 	I_SYNC			= (1U << __I_SYNC),
> 	// waitable bit 2 unused
> 	// waitable bit 3 unused
> 	I_DIRTY_SYNC		= (1U << 4),
> ....
> 
> This will be much more blame friendly if we do it this way from the
> start of this patch set.

Thanks. I had this locally a bit differently but I just change it to a
comment.