[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20171123140600.kchjwercnkxc2xjb@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2017 15:06:00 +0100
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>
Cc: jack@...e.cz, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, david@...morbit.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs: handle shrinker registration failure in sget_userns
On Thu 23-11-17 22:57:06, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > @@ -260,9 +261,8 @@ static struct super_block *alloc_super(struct file_system_type *type, int flags,
> > > s->s_shrink.count_objects = super_cache_count;
> > > s->s_shrink.batch = 1024;
> > > s->s_shrink.flags = SHRINKER_NUMA_AWARE | SHRINKER_MEMCG_AWARE;
> > > - INIT_LIST_HEAD(&s->s_shrink.list);
> > > - return s;
> > > -
> > > + if (register_shrinker(&s->s_shrink) == 0)
> > > + return s;
> > > fail:
> > > destroy_unused_super(s);
> > > return NULL;
> >
> > But I am not sure this is correct. So what protects shrinker invocation
> > while the object is not initialized yet?
>
> Then, what protects shrinker invocation in your patch?
It is s_umount lock but that one is alreay held at the point where you
suggested register_shrinker. My bad, I could have noticed that. Feel
free to take over and send a patch. Considering I've screwed several
times already I do not feel I am the right one to send the fix.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists