Re: [PATCH 0/6] kernfs: proposed locking and concurrency improvement

On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 12:20 PM Ian Kent [off-list ref] wrote:

On Mon, 2021-01-11 at 11:19 +0800, Ian Kent wrote:

quoted

On Wed, 2021-01-06 at 10:38 +0800, Fox Chen wrote:

quoted

Hi Ian,

I am rethinking this problem. Can we simply use a global lock?

 In your original patch 5, you have a global mutex attr_mutex to
protect attr, if we change it to a rwsem, is it enough to protect
both
inode and attr while having the concurrent read ability?

like this patch I submitted. ( clearly, I missed __kernfs_iattrs
part,
but just about that idea )
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20201207084333.179132-1-foxhlchen@gmail.com/ (local)

I don't think so.

kernfs_refresh_inode() writes to the inode so taking a read lock
will allow multiple processes to concurrently update it which is
what we need to avoid.

Oh, got it. I missed the inode part. my bad. :(

quoted

It's possibly even more interesting.

For example, kernfs_iop_rmdir() and kernfs_iop_mkdir() might alter
the inode link count (I don't know if that would be the sort of thing
they would do but kernfs can't possibly know either). Both of these
functions rely on the VFS locking for exclusion but the inode link
count is updated in kernfs_refresh_inode() too.

That's the case now, without any patches.

So it's not so easy to get the inode from just the kernfs object
so these probably aren't a problem ...

IIUC only when dop->revalidate, iop->lookup being called, the result
of rmdir/mkdir will be sync with vfs.

kernfs_node is detached from vfs inode/dentry to save ram.

quoted

I'm not entirely sure what's going on in kernfs_refresh_inode().

It could be as simple as being called with a NULL inode because
the dentry concerned is negative at that point. I haven't had
time to look closely at it TBH but I have been thinking about it.

um, It shouldn't be called with a NULL inode, right?

inode->i_mode = kn->mode;

otherwise will crash.

Certainly this can be called without a struct iattr having been
allocated ... and given it probably needs to remain a pointer
rather than embedded in the node the inode link count update
can't easily be protected from concurrent updates.

If it was ok to do the allocation at inode creation the problem
becomes much simpler to resolve but I thought there were concerns
about ram consumption (although I don't think that was exactly what
was said?).

you meant iattr to be allocated at inode creation time??
yes, I think so. it's due to ram consumption.



thanks,
fox