[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140417202237.GA18016@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 21:22:37 +0100
From: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>,
Linux-Fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Rob Landley <rob@...dley.net>,
Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Karel Zak <kzak@...hat.com>,
"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>,
Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@...el.com>, tytso@....edu
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Detaching mounts on unlink for 3.15
Have you tried to profile something like umount -l on a large mount tree?
You variant causes a shitstorm of
schedule work
switch to workqueue
do actual fs shutdown
wake umount(8) up
get through wait_for_completion()
for every bleeding vfsmount in there. And no, it's *not* guaranteed to
be dominated by fs shutdown time. Here's the case where it definitely
won't be:
mkdir /tmp/a
mount --rbind / /tmp/a
umount -l /tmp/a
All vfsmounts involved are killed off with no fs shutdown. And that's
*not* a rare case - exit of the last process in namespace is very likely
to look that way too.
That's far too heavy.
--
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