trylock_super(): replacement for grab_super_passive()
I've noticed significant locking contention in memory reclaimer around
sb_lock inside grab_super_passive(). Grab_super_passive() is called from
two places: in icache/dcache shrinkers (function super_cache_scan) and
from writeback (function __writeback_inodes_wb). Both are required for
progress in memory allocator.
Grab_super_passive() acquires sb_lock to increment sb->s_count and check
sb->s_instances. It seems sb->s_umount locked for read is enough here:
super-block deactivation always runs under sb->s_umount locked for write.
Protecting super-block itself isn't a problem: in super_cache_scan() sb
is protected by shrinker_rwsem: it cannot be freed if its slab shrinkers
are still active. Inside writeback super-block comes from inode from bdi
writeback list under wb->list_lock.
This patch removes locking sb_lock and checks s_instances under s_umount:
generic_shutdown_super() unlinks it under sb->s_umount locked for write.
New variant is called trylock_super() and since it only locks semaphore,
callers must call up_read(&sb->s_umount) instead of drop_super(sb) when
they're done.
Signed-off-by: Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@yandex-team.ru>
Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
diff --git a/fs/fs-writeback.c b/fs/fs-writeback.c
index 073657f..e907052 100644
--- a/fs/fs-writeback.c
+++ b/fs/fs-writeback.c
@@ -769,9 +769,9 @@
struct inode *inode = wb_inode(wb->b_io.prev);
struct super_block *sb = inode->i_sb;
- if (!grab_super_passive(sb)) {
+ if (!trylock_super(sb)) {
/*
- * grab_super_passive() may fail consistently due to
+ * trylock_super() may fail consistently due to
* s_umount being grabbed by someone else. Don't use
* requeue_io() to avoid busy retrying the inode/sb.
*/
@@ -779,7 +779,7 @@
continue;
}
wrote += writeback_sb_inodes(sb, wb, work);
- drop_super(sb);
+ up_read(&sb->s_umount);
/* refer to the same tests at the end of writeback_sb_inodes */
if (wrote) {