On Thu, Aug 28, 2025 at 01:02:31PM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 26, 2025 at 11:39:20AM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
> > Now that we take a full reference for inodes on the LRU, move the logic
> > to add the inode to the LRU to before we drop our last reference. This
> > allows us to ensure that if the inode has a reference count it can be
> > used, and we no longer hold onto inodes that have a 0 reference count.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > fs/inode.c | 61 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------
> > 1 file changed, 41 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/inode.c b/fs/inode.c
> > index 9001f809add0..d1668f7fb73e 100644
> > --- a/fs/inode.c
> > +++ b/fs/inode.c
> > @@ -598,7 +598,7 @@ static void __inode_add_lru(struct inode *inode, bool rotate)
> >
> > if (inode->i_state & (I_FREEING | I_WILL_FREE))
> > return;
> > - if (icount_read(inode))
> > + if (icount_read(inode) != 1)
> > return;
> > if (inode->__i_nlink == 0)
> > return;
> > @@ -1950,28 +1950,11 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(generic_delete_inode);
> > * in cache if fs is alive, sync and evict if fs is
> > * shutting down.
> > */
> > -static void iput_final(struct inode *inode, bool skip_lru)
> > +static void iput_final(struct inode *inode, bool drop)
> > {
> > - struct super_block *sb = inode->i_sb;
> > - const struct super_operations *op = inode->i_sb->s_op;
> > unsigned long state;
> > - int drop;
> >
> > WARN_ON(inode->i_state & I_NEW);
> > -
> > - if (op->drop_inode)
> > - drop = op->drop_inode(inode);
> > - else
> > - drop = generic_drop_inode(inode);
> > -
> > - if (!drop && !skip_lru &&
> > - !(inode->i_state & I_DONTCACHE) &&
> > - (sb->s_flags & SB_ACTIVE)) {
> > - __inode_add_lru(inode, true);
> > - spin_unlock(&inode->i_lock);
> > - return;
> > - }
> > -
> > WARN_ON(!list_empty(&inode->i_lru));
> >
> > state = inode->i_state;
> > @@ -1993,8 +1976,37 @@ static void iput_final(struct inode *inode, bool skip_lru)
> > evict(inode);
> > }
> >
> > +static bool maybe_add_lru(struct inode *inode, bool skip_lru)
> > +{
> > + const struct super_operations *op = inode->i_sb->s_op;
> > + const struct super_block *sb = inode->i_sb;
> > + bool drop = false;
> > +
> > + if (op->drop_inode)
> > + drop = op->drop_inode(inode);
> > + else
> > + drop = generic_drop_inode(inode);
> > +
> > + if (drop)
> > + return drop;
> > +
> > + if (skip_lru)
> > + return drop;
> > +
> > + if (inode->i_state & I_DONTCACHE)
> > + return drop;
> > +
> > + if (!(sb->s_flags & SB_ACTIVE))
> > + return drop;
> > +
> > + __inode_add_lru(inode, true);
> > + return drop;
> > +}
> > +
> > static void __iput(struct inode *inode, bool skip_lru)
> > {
> > + bool drop;
> > +
> > if (!inode)
> > return;
> > BUG_ON(inode->i_state & I_CLEAR);
> > @@ -2010,9 +2022,18 @@ static void __iput(struct inode *inode, bool skip_lru)
> > }
> >
> > spin_lock(&inode->i_lock);
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * If we want to keep the inode around on an LRU we will grab a ref to
> > + * the inode when we add it to the LRU list, so we can safely drop the
> > + * callers reference after this. If we didn't add the inode to the LRU
> > + * then the refcount will still be 1 and we can do the final iput.
> > + */
> > + drop = maybe_add_lru(inode, skip_lru);
>
> So before we only put the inode on an LRU when we knew we this was the
> last reference. Now we're putting it on the LRU before we know that for
> sure.
>
> While __inode_add_lru() now checks whether this is potentially the last
> reference we're goint to but, someone could grab another full reference
> in between the check, putting it on the LRU and atomic_dec_and_test().
> So we are left with an inode on the LRU that previously would not have
> ended up there. And then later we need to remove it again. I guess the
> arguments are:
>
> (1) It's not a big deal because if the shrinker runs we'll just toss that
> inode from the LRU again.
> (2) If it ended up being put on the cached LRU it'll stay there for at
> least as long as the inode is referenced? I guess that's ok too.
> (3) The race is not that common?
>
> Anyway, again it would be nice to have some comments noting this
> behavior and arguing why that's ok.
Yup I'll add a lengthy explanation. Thanks,
Josef
