[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110604004231.GV11521@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2011 01:42:31 +0100
From: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
Cc: linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, xfs@....sgi.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/12] superblock: introduce per-sb cache shrinker
infrastructure
> @@ -278,7 +325,12 @@ void generic_shutdown_super(struct super_block *sb)
> {
> const struct super_operations *sop = sb->s_op;
>
> -
> + /*
> + * shut down the shrinker first so we know that there are no possible
> + * races when shrinking the dcache or icache. Removes the need for
> + * external locking to prevent such races.
> + */
> + unregister_shrinker(&sb->s_shrink);
> if (sb->s_root) {
> shrink_dcache_for_umount(sb);
> sync_filesystem(sb);
What it means is that shrinker_rwsem now nests inside ->s_umount... IOW,
if any ->shrink() gets stuck, so does every generic_shutdown_super().
I'm still not convinced it's a good idea - especially since _this_
superblock will be skipped anyway. Is there any good reason to evict
shrinker that early? Note that doing that after ->s_umount is dropped
should be reasonably safe - your shrinker will see that superblock is
doomed if it's called anywhere in that window...
--
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