Message-Id: <20080208222725.2B3F9037@kernel>
Date:	Fri, 08 Feb 2008 14:27:25 -0800
From:	Dave Hansen <haveblue@...ibm.com>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:	hch@....de, viro@...IV.linux.org.uk, viro@....linux.org.uk,
	miklos@...redi.hu, Dave Hansen <haveblue@...ibm.com>
Subject: [RFC][PATCH 28/30] r/o bind mounts: track numbers of writers to mounts


This is the real meat of the entire series.  It actually
implements the tracking of the number of writers to a mount.
However, it causes scalability problems because there can be
hundreds of cpus doing open()/close() on files on the same mnt at
the same time.  Even an atomic_t in the mnt has massive scalaing
problems because the cacheline gets so terribly contended.

This uses a statically-allocated percpu variable.  All want/drop
operations are local to a cpu as long that cpu operates on the same
mount, and there are no writer count imbalances.  Writer count
imbalances happen when a write is taken on one cpu, and released
on another, like when an open/close pair is performed on two

Upon a remount,ro request, all of the data from the percpu
variables is collected (expensive, but very rare) and we determine
if there are any outstanding writers to the mount.

I've written a little benchmark to sit in a loop for a couple of
seconds in several cpus in parallel doing open/write/close loops.

http://sr71.net/~dave/linux/openbench.c

The code in here is a a worst-possible case for this patch.  It
does opens on a _pair_ of files in two different mounts in parallel.
This should cause my code to lose its "operate on the same mount"
optimization completely.  This worst-case scenario causes a 3%
degredation in the benchmark.

I could probably get rid of even this 3%, but it would be more
complex than what I have here, and I think this is getting into
acceptable territory.  In practice, I expect writing more than 3
bytes to a file, as well as disk I/O to mask any effects that this
has.

(To get rid of that 3%, we could have an #defined number of mounts
in the percpu variable.  So, instead of a CPU getting operate only
on percpu data when it accesses only one mount, it could stay on
percpu data when it only accesses N or fewer mounts.)

Signed-off-by: Dave Hansen <haveblue@...ibm.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
---

 linux-2.6.git-dave/fs/namespace.c        |  240 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
 linux-2.6.git-dave/include/linux/mount.h |    7 
 2 files changed, 232 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)

diff -puN fs/namespace.c~r-o-bind-mounts-track-number-of-mount-writers fs/namespace.c
--- linux-2.6.git/fs/namespace.c~r-o-bind-mounts-track-number-of-mount-writers	2008-02-08 13:05:00.000000000 -0800
+++ linux-2.6.git-dave/fs/namespace.c	2008-02-08 13:05:00.000000000 -0800
@@ -17,6 +17,7 @@
 #include <linux/quotaops.h>
 #include <linux/acct.h>
 #include <linux/capability.h>
+#include <linux/cpumask.h>
 #include <linux/module.h>
 #include <linux/sysfs.h>
 #include <linux/seq_file.h>
@@ -55,6 +56,8 @@ static inline unsigned long hash(struct 
 	return tmp & (HASH_SIZE - 1);
 }
 
+#define MNT_WRITER_UNDERFLOW_LIMIT -(1<<16)
+
 struct vfsmount *alloc_vfsmnt(const char *name)
 {
 	struct vfsmount *mnt = kmem_cache_zalloc(mnt_cache, GFP_KERNEL);
@@ -68,6 +71,7 @@ struct vfsmount *alloc_vfsmnt(const char
 		INIT_LIST_HEAD(&mnt->mnt_share);
 		INIT_LIST_HEAD(&mnt->mnt_slave_list);
 		INIT_LIST_HEAD(&mnt->mnt_slave);
+		atomic_set(&mnt->__mnt_writers, 0);
 		if (name) {
 			int size = strlen(name) + 1;
 			char *newname = kmalloc(size, GFP_KERNEL);
@@ -88,6 +92,86 @@ struct vfsmount *alloc_vfsmnt(const char
  * we can determine when writes are able to occur to
  * a filesystem.
  */
+/*
+ * __mnt_is_readonly: check whether a mount is read-only
+ * @mnt: the mount to check for its write status
+ *
+ * This shouldn't be used directly ouside of the VFS.
+ * It does not guarantee that the filesystem will stay
+ * r/w, just that it is right *now*.  This can not and
+ * should not be used in place of IS_RDONLY(inode).
+ * mnt_want/drop_write() will _keep_ the filesystem
+ * r/w.
+ */
+int __mnt_is_readonly(struct vfsmount *mnt)
+{
+	return (mnt->mnt_sb->s_flags & MS_RDONLY);
+}
+EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(__mnt_is_readonly);
+
+struct mnt_writer {
+	/*
+	 * If holding multiple instances of this lock, they
+	 * must be ordered by cpu number.
+	 */
+	spinlock_t lock;
+	struct lock_class_key lock_class; /* compiles out with !lockdep */
+	unsigned long count;
+	struct vfsmount *mnt;
+} ____cacheline_aligned_in_smp;
+static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct mnt_writer, mnt_writers);
+
+static int __init init_mnt_writers(void)
+{
+	int cpu;
+	for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
+		struct mnt_writer *writer = &per_cpu(mnt_writers, cpu);
+		spin_lock_init(&writer->lock);
+		lockdep_set_class(&writer->lock, &writer->lock_class);
+		writer->count = 0;
+	}
+	return 0;
+}
+fs_initcall(init_mnt_writers);
+
+static void unlock_mnt_writers(void)
+{
+	int cpu;
+	struct mnt_writer *cpu_writer;
+
+	for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
+		cpu_writer = &per_cpu(mnt_writers, cpu);
+		spin_unlock(&cpu_writer->lock);
+	}
+}
+
+static inline void __clear_mnt_count(struct mnt_writer *cpu_writer)
+{
+	if (!cpu_writer->mnt)
+		return;
+	atomic_add(cpu_writer->count, &cpu_writer->mnt->__mnt_writers);
+	cpu_writer->count = 0;
+}
+ /*
+ * must hold cpu_writer->lock
+ */
+static inline void use_cpu_writer_for_mount(struct mnt_writer *cpu_writer,
+					  struct vfsmount *mnt)
+{
+	if (cpu_writer->mnt == mnt)
+		return;
+	__clear_mnt_count(cpu_writer);
+	cpu_writer->mnt = mnt;
+}
+
+/*
+ * Most r/o checks on a fs are for operations that take
+ * discrete amounts of time, like a write() or unlink().
+ * We must keep track of when those operations start
+ * (for permission checks) and when they end, so that
+ * we can determine when writes are able to occur to
+ * a filesystem.
+ */
 /**
  * mnt_want_write - get write access to a mount
  * @mnt: the mount on which to take a write
@@ -100,12 +184,77 @@ struct vfsmount *alloc_vfsmnt(const char
  */
 int mnt_want_write(struct vfsmount *mnt)
 {
-	if (__mnt_is_readonly(mnt))
-		return -EROFS;
-	return 0;
+	int ret = 0;
+	struct mnt_writer *cpu_writer;
+
+	cpu_writer = &get_cpu_var(mnt_writers);
+	spin_lock(&cpu_writer->lock);
+	if (__mnt_is_readonly(mnt)) {
+		ret = -EROFS;
+		goto out;
+	}
+	use_cpu_writer_for_mount(cpu_writer, mnt);
+	cpu_writer->count++;
+out:
+	spin_unlock(&cpu_writer->lock);
+	put_cpu_var(mnt_writers);
+	return ret;
 }
 EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(mnt_want_write);
 
+static void lock_mnt_writers(void)
+{
+	int cpu;
+	struct mnt_writer *cpu_writer;
+
+	for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
+		cpu_writer = &per_cpu(mnt_writers, cpu);
+		spin_lock(&cpu_writer->lock);
+		__clear_mnt_count(cpu_writer);
+		cpu_writer->mnt = NULL;
+	}
+}
+
+/*
+ * These per-cpu write counts are not guaranteed to have
+ * matched increments and decrements on any given cpu.
+ * A file open()ed for write on one cpu and close()d on
+ * another cpu will imbalance this count.  Make sure it
+ * does not get too far out of whack.
+ */
+static void handle_write_count_underflow(struct vfsmount *mnt)
+{
+	if (atomic_read(&mnt->__mnt_writers) >=
+	    MNT_WRITER_UNDERFLOW_LIMIT)
+		return;
+	/*
+	 * It isn't necessary to hold all of the locks
+	 * at the same time, but doing it this way makes
+	 * us share a lot more code.
+	 */
+	lock_mnt_writers();
+	/*
+	 * vfsmount_lock is for mnt_flags.
+	 */
+	spin_lock(&vfsmount_lock);
+	/*
+	 * If coalescing the per-cpu writer counts did not
+	 * get us back to a positive writer count, we have
+	 * a bug.
+	 */
+	if ((atomic_read(&mnt->__mnt_writers) < 0) &&
+	    !(mnt->mnt_flags & MNT_IMBALANCED_WRITE_COUNT)) {
+		printk(KERN_DEBUG "leak detected on mount(%p) writers "
+				"count: %d\n",
+			mnt, atomic_read(&mnt->__mnt_writers));
+		WARN_ON(1);
+		/* use the flag to keep the dmesg spam down */
+		mnt->mnt_flags |= MNT_IMBALANCED_WRITE_COUNT;
+	}
+	spin_unlock(&vfsmount_lock);
+	unlock_mnt_writers();
+}
+
 /**
  * mnt_drop_write - give up write access to a mount
  * @mnt: the mount on which to give up write access
@@ -116,23 +265,61 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(mnt_want_write);
  */
 void mnt_drop_write(struct vfsmount *mnt)
 {
+	int must_check_underflow = 0;
+	struct mnt_writer *cpu_writer;
+
+	cpu_writer = &get_cpu_var(mnt_writers);
+	spin_lock(&cpu_writer->lock);
+
+	use_cpu_writer_for_mount(cpu_writer, mnt);
+	if (cpu_writer->count > 0) {
+		cpu_writer->count--;
+	} else {
+		must_check_underflow = 1;
+		atomic_dec(&mnt->__mnt_writers);
+	}
+
+	spin_unlock(&cpu_writer->lock);
+	/*
+	 * Logically, we could call this each time,
+	 * but the __mnt_writers cacheline tends to
+	 * be cold, and makes this expensive.
+	 */
+	if (must_check_underflow)
+		handle_write_count_underflow(mnt);
+	/*
+	 * This could be done right after the spinlock
+	 * is taken because the spinlock keeps us on
+	 * the cpu, and disables preemption.  However,
+	 * putting it here bounds the amount that
+	 * __mnt_writers can underflow.  Without it,
+	 * we could theoretically wrap __mnt_writers.
+	 */
+	put_cpu_var(mnt_writers);
 }
 EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(mnt_drop_write);
 
-/*
- * __mnt_is_readonly: check whether a mount is read-only
- * @mnt: the mount to check for its write status
- *
- * This shouldn't be used directly ouside of the VFS.
- * It does not guarantee that the filesystem will stay
- * r/w, just that it is right *now*.  This can not and
- * should not be used in place of IS_RDONLY(inode).
- */
-int __mnt_is_readonly(struct vfsmount *mnt)
+int mnt_make_readonly(struct vfsmount *mnt)
 {
-	return (mnt->mnt_sb->s_flags & MS_RDONLY);
+	int ret = 0;
+
+	lock_mnt_writers();
+	/*
+	 * With all the locks held, this value is stable
+	 */
+	if (atomic_read(&mnt->__mnt_writers) > 0) {
+		ret = -EBUSY;
+		goto out;
+	}
+	/*
+	 * actually set mount's r/o flag here to make
+	 * __mnt_is_readonly() true, which keeps anyone
+	 * from doing a successful mnt_want_write().
+	 */
+out:
+	unlock_mnt_writers();
+	return ret;
 }
-EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(__mnt_is_readonly);
 
 int simple_set_mnt(struct vfsmount *mnt, struct super_block *sb)
 {
@@ -327,7 +514,30 @@ static struct vfsmount *clone_mnt(struct
 
 static inline void __mntput(struct vfsmount *mnt)
 {
+	int cpu;
 	struct super_block *sb = mnt->mnt_sb;
+	/*
+	 * We don't have to hold all of the locks at the
+	 * same time here because we know that we're the
+	 * last reference to mnt and that no new writers
+	 * can come in.
+	 */
+	for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
+		struct mnt_writer *cpu_writer = &per_cpu(mnt_writers, cpu);
+		if (cpu_writer->mnt != mnt)
+			continue;
+		spin_lock(&cpu_writer->lock);
+		atomic_add(cpu_writer->count, &mnt->__mnt_writers);
+		cpu_writer->count = 0;
+		spin_unlock(&cpu_writer->lock);
+	}
+	/*
+	 * This probably indicates that somebody messed
+	 * up a mnt_want/drop_write() pair.  If this
+	 * happens, the filesystem was probably unable
+	 * to make r/w->r/o transitions.
+	 */
+	WARN_ON(atomic_read(&mnt->__mnt_writers));
 	dput(mnt->mnt_root);
 	free_vfsmnt(mnt);
 	deactivate_super(sb);
diff -puN include/linux/mount.h~r-o-bind-mounts-track-number-of-mount-writers include/linux/mount.h
--- linux-2.6.git/include/linux/mount.h~r-o-bind-mounts-track-number-of-mount-writers	2008-02-08 13:05:00.000000000 -0800
+++ linux-2.6.git-dave/include/linux/mount.h	2008-02-08 13:05:00.000000000 -0800
@@ -14,6 +14,7 @@
 
 #include <linux/types.h>
 #include <linux/list.h>
+#include <linux/nodemask.h>
 #include <linux/spinlock.h>
 #include <asm/atomic.h>
 
@@ -30,6 +31,7 @@ struct mnt_namespace;
 #define MNT_RELATIME	0x20
 
 #define MNT_SHRINKABLE	0x100
+#define MNT_IMBALANCED_WRITE_COUNT	0x200 /* just for debugging */
 
 #define MNT_SHARED	0x1000	/* if the vfsmount is a shared mount */
 #define MNT_UNBINDABLE	0x2000	/* if the vfsmount is a unbindable mount */
@@ -61,6 +63,11 @@ struct vfsmount {
 	atomic_t mnt_count;
 	int mnt_expiry_mark;		/* true if marked for expiry */
 	int mnt_pinned;
+	/*
+	 * This value is not stable unless all of the mnt_writers[] spinlocks
+	 * are held, and all mnt_writer[]s on this mount have 0 as their ->count
+	 */
+	atomic_t __mnt_writers;
 };
 
 static inline struct vfsmount *mntget(struct vfsmount *mnt)
_
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists