Message-Id: <6188A470-DF7F-44CE-89F0-117EC2FA1677@linuxhacker.ru>
Date:	Tue, 5 Jul 2016 20:29:37 -0400
From:	Oleg Drokin <green@...uxhacker.ru>
To:	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
Cc:	Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"<linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: More parallel atomic_open/d_splice_alias fun with NFS and possibly more FSes.


On Jul 5, 2016, at 4:21 PM, Oleg Drokin wrote:
> 
>>> So with Lustre the dentry can be in three states, really:
>>> 
>>> 1. hashed dentry that's all A-ok to reuse.
>>> 2. hashed dentry that's NOT valid (dlm lock went away) - this is distinguished in d_compare by looking at a bit in the fs_data
>>> 3. unhashed dentry ( I guess could be both valid and invalid lustre-wise).
>>> 
>>> So the logic in ll_lookup_it_finish() (part of regular lookup) is this:
>>> 
>>> If the dentry we have is not hashed - this is a new lookup, so we need to
>>> call into ll_splice_alias() to see if there's a better dentry we need to
>>> reuse that was already rejected by VFS before since we did not have necessary locks,
>>> but we do have them now.
>>> The comment at the top of ll_dcompare() explains why we don't just unhash the
>>> dentry on lock-loss - that apparently leads to a loop around real_lookup for
>>> real-contended dentries.
>>> This is also why we cannot use d_splice_alias here - such cases are possible
>>> for regular files and directories.
>>> 
>>> Anyway, I guess additional point of confusion here is then why does
>>> ll_lookup_it_finish() need to check for hashedness of the dentry since it's in
>>> lookup, so we should be unhashed here.
>>> I checked the commit history and this check was added along with atomic_open
>>> support, so I imagine we can just move it up into ll_atomic_open and then your
>>> change starts to make sense along with a few other things.
>> 
>> So basically this
>>       } else if (!it_disposition(it, DISP_LOOKUP_NEG)  &&
>>                  !it_disposition(it, DISP_OPEN_CREATE)) {
>>               /* With DISP_OPEN_CREATE dentry will be
>>                * instantiated in ll_create_it.
>>                */
>>               LASSERT(!d_inode(*de));
>>               d_instantiate(*de, inode);
>>       }
>> is something we should do only for negative hashed fed to it by
>> ->atomic_open(), and that - only if we have no O_CREAT in flags?
> 
> Yes, and in fact we can totally avoid it I think.
> 
>> Then, since 3/3 eliminates that case completely, we could just rip that
>> else-if, along with the check for d_unhashed itself, making the call of
>> ll_splice_alias() unconditional there.  Or am I misreading what you said?
>> Do you see any problems with what's in #for-linus now (head at 11f0083)?
> 
> Yes, we can make it unconditional
> I think we can simplify it even more and since unlike NFS our negative dentries
> are a lot less speculative, we can just return ENOENT if this is not a create
> request and unhash otherwise. Still needs to go through the whole test suite
> to make sure it does not break anything unexpected.
> 
> At least this is the patch I am playing with right now:
> --- a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/llite/namei.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/llite/namei.c
> @@ -391,6 +391,7 @@ static int ll_lookup_it_finish(struct ptlrpc_request *request,
> 	struct inode *inode = NULL;
> 	__u64 bits = 0;
> 	int rc = 0;
> +	struct dentry *alias;
> 
> 	/* NB 1 request reference will be taken away by ll_intent_lock()
> 	 * when I return
> @@ -415,26 +416,12 @@ static int ll_lookup_it_finish(struct ptlrpc_request *request,
> 		 */
> 	}
> 
> -	/* Only hash *de if it is unhashed (new dentry).
> -	 * Atoimc_open may passing hashed dentries for open.
> -	 */
> -	if (d_unhashed(*de)) {
> -		struct dentry *alias;
> -
> -		alias = ll_splice_alias(inode, *de);
> -		if (IS_ERR(alias)) {
> -			rc = PTR_ERR(alias);
> -			goto out;
> -		}
> -		*de = alias;
> -	} else if (!it_disposition(it, DISP_LOOKUP_NEG)  &&
> -		   !it_disposition(it, DISP_OPEN_CREATE)) {
> -		/* With DISP_OPEN_CREATE dentry will be
> -		 * instantiated in ll_create_it.
> -		 */
> -		LASSERT(!d_inode(*de));
> -		d_instantiate(*de, inode);
> +	alias = ll_splice_alias(inode, *de);
> +	if (IS_ERR(alias)) {
> +		rc = PTR_ERR(alias);
> +		goto out;
> 	}
> +	*de = alias;
> 
> 	if (!it_disposition(it, DISP_LOOKUP_NEG)) {
> 		/* we have lookup look - unhide dentry */
> @@ -590,6 +577,24 @@ static int ll_atomic_open(struct inode *dir, struct dentry *dentry,
> 	       dentry, PFID(ll_inode2fid(dir)), dir, file, open_flags, mode,
> 	       *opened);
> 
> +	/* Only negative dentries enter here */
> +	LASSERT(!d_inode(dentry));
> +
> +	if (!(open_flags & O_CREAT) && !d_in_lookup(dentry)) {

Duh, this obviously was supposed to be
 if (!d_in_lookup(dentry)) {

But even in the form above nothing bad happened in the full testing
because we cannot find any aliases without an inode.

> +		/* A valid negative dentry that just passed revalidation,
> +		 * there's little point to try and open it server-side,
> +		 * even though there's a minuscle chance it might succeed.
> +		 * Either way it's a valid race to just return -ENOENT here.
> +		 */
> +		if (!(open_flags & O_CREAT))
> +			return -ENOENT;
> +
> +		/* Otherwise we just unhash it to be rehashed afresh via
> +		 * lookup if necessary
> +		 */
> +		d_drop(dentry);

So we can even drop this part and retain the top condition as it was.
d_add does not care if the dentry we are feeding it was hashed or not,
so do you see any downsides to doing that I wonder?

> +	}
> +
> 	it = kzalloc(sizeof(*it), GFP_NOFS);
> 	if (!it)
> 		return -ENOMEM;
> 
> 

Powered by blists - more mailing lists