| 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
| ||
|
Message-Id: <944c2e520a82b2f6df0f0f9982dd98778f82e63d.1290852959.git.npiggin@kernel.dk>
Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2010 20:44:59 +1100
From: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...nel.dk>
To: linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH 29/46] fs: consolidate dentry kill sequence
The tricky locking for disposing of a dentry is duplicated 3 times in the
dcache (dput, pruning a dentry from the LRU, and pruning its ancestors).
Consolidate them all into a single function dentry_kill.
Signed-off-by: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...nel.dk>
---
fs/dcache.c | 137 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------------------------
1 files changed, 62 insertions(+), 75 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/dcache.c b/fs/dcache.c
index 4dbcb6c..5abb8f2 100644
--- a/fs/dcache.c
+++ b/fs/dcache.c
@@ -244,6 +244,40 @@ static struct dentry *d_kill(struct dentry *dentry, struct dentry *parent)
return parent;
}
+/*
+ * Finish off a dentry we've decided to kill.
+ * dentry->d_lock must be held, returns with it unlocked.
+ * If ref is non-zero, then decrement the refcount too.
+ * Returns dentry requiring refcount drop, or NULL if we're done.
+ */
+static inline struct dentry *dentry_kill(struct dentry *dentry, int ref)
+ __releases(dentry->d_lock)
+{
+ struct dentry *parent;
+
+ if (!spin_trylock(&dcache_inode_lock)) {
+relock:
+ spin_unlock(&dentry->d_lock);
+ cpu_relax();
+ return dentry; /* try again with same dentry */
+ }
+ if (IS_ROOT(dentry))
+ parent = NULL;
+ else
+ parent = dentry->d_parent;
+ if (parent && !spin_trylock(&parent->d_lock)) {
+ spin_unlock(&dcache_inode_lock);
+ goto relock;
+ }
+ if (ref)
+ dentry->d_count--;
+ /* if dentry was on the d_lru list delete it from there */
+ dentry_lru_del(dentry);
+ /* if it was on the hash then remove it */
+ __d_drop(dentry);
+ return d_kill(dentry, parent);
+}
+
/*
* This is dput
*
@@ -269,13 +303,9 @@ static struct dentry *d_kill(struct dentry *dentry, struct dentry *parent)
* call the dentry unlink method as well as removing it from the queues and
* releasing its resources. If the parent dentries were scheduled for release
* they too may now get deleted.
- *
- * no dcache lock, please.
*/
-
void dput(struct dentry *dentry)
{
- struct dentry *parent;
if (!dentry)
return;
@@ -308,26 +338,7 @@ repeat:
return;
kill_it:
- if (!spin_trylock(&dcache_inode_lock)) {
-relock:
- spin_unlock(&dentry->d_lock);
- cpu_relax();
- goto repeat;
- }
- if (IS_ROOT(dentry))
- parent = NULL;
- else
- parent = dentry->d_parent;
- if (parent && !spin_trylock(&parent->d_lock)) {
- spin_unlock(&dcache_inode_lock);
- goto relock;
- }
- dentry->d_count--;
- /* if dentry was on the d_lru list delete it from there */
- dentry_lru_del(dentry);
- /* if it was on the hash (d_delete case), then remove it */
- __d_drop(dentry);
- dentry = d_kill(dentry, parent);
+ dentry = dentry_kill(dentry, 1);
if (dentry)
goto repeat;
}
@@ -528,51 +539,43 @@ restart:
EXPORT_SYMBOL(d_prune_aliases);
/*
- * Throw away a dentry - free the inode, dput the parent. This requires that
- * the LRU list has already been removed.
+ * Try to throw away a dentry - free the inode, dput the parent.
+ * Requires dentry->d_lock is held, and dentry->d_count == 0.
+ * Releases dentry->d_lock.
*
- * Try to prune ancestors as well. This is necessary to prevent
- * quadratic behavior of shrink_dcache_parent(), but is also expected
- * to be beneficial in reducing dentry cache fragmentation.
+ * This may fail if locks cannot be acquired no problem, just try again.
*/
-static void prune_one_dentry(struct dentry *dentry, struct dentry *parent)
+static void try_prune_one_dentry(struct dentry *dentry)
__releases(dentry->d_lock)
- __releases(parent->d_lock)
- __releases(dcache_inode_lock)
{
- __d_drop(dentry);
- dentry = d_kill(dentry, parent);
+ struct dentry *parent;
+ parent = dentry_kill(dentry, 0);
/*
- * Prune ancestors.
+ * If dentry_kill returns NULL, we have nothing more to do.
+ * if it returns the same dentry, trylocks failed. In either
+ * case, just loop again.
+ *
+ * Otherwise, we need to prune ancestors too. This is necessary
+ * to prevent quadratic behavior of shrink_dcache_parent(), but
+ * is also expected to be beneficial in reducing dentry cache
+ * fragmentation.
*/
+ if (!parent)
+ return;
+ if (parent == dentry)
+ return;
+
+ /* Prune ancestors. */
+ dentry = parent;
while (dentry) {
-relock:
spin_lock(&dentry->d_lock);
if (dentry->d_count > 1) {
dentry->d_count--;
spin_unlock(&dentry->d_lock);
- return;
- }
- if (!spin_trylock(&dcache_inode_lock)) {
-relock2:
- spin_unlock(&dentry->d_lock);
- cpu_relax();
- goto relock;
- }
-
- if (IS_ROOT(dentry))
- parent = NULL;
- else
- parent = dentry->d_parent;
- if (parent && !spin_trylock(&parent->d_lock)) {
- spin_unlock(&dcache_inode_lock);
- goto relock2;
+ return;
}
- dentry->d_count--;
- dentry_lru_del(dentry);
- __d_drop(dentry);
- dentry = d_kill(dentry, parent);
+ dentry = dentry_kill(dentry, 1);
}
}
@@ -582,8 +585,6 @@ static void shrink_dentry_list(struct list_head *list)
rcu_read_lock();
while (!list_empty(list)) {
- struct dentry *parent;
-
dentry = list_entry(list->prev, struct dentry, d_lru);
/* Don't need RCU dereference because we recheck under lock */
@@ -604,24 +605,10 @@ static void shrink_dentry_list(struct list_head *list)
continue;
}
- if (!spin_trylock(&dcache_inode_lock)) {
-relock:
- spin_unlock(&dentry->d_lock);
- cpu_relax();
- continue;
- }
- if (IS_ROOT(dentry))
- parent = NULL;
- else
- parent = dentry->d_parent;
- if (parent && !spin_trylock(&parent->d_lock)) {
- spin_unlock(&dcache_inode_lock);
- goto relock;
- }
- dentry_lru_del(dentry);
-
rcu_read_unlock();
- prune_one_dentry(dentry, parent);
+
+ try_prune_one_dentry(dentry);
+
rcu_read_lock();
}
rcu_read_unlock();
--
1.7.1
--
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