Re: [PATCH 3/4] vfs: count unlinked inodes

[Miklos Szeredi]

On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 3:38 PM, Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sat, 2011-12-17 at 07:36 +0000, Al Viro wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 12:11:32PM +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
>> > @@ -241,6 +242,11 @@ void __destroy_inode(struct inode *inode)
>> > Â Â BUG_ON(inode_has_buffers(inode));
>> > Â Â security_inode_free(inode);
>> > Â Â fsnotify_inode_delete(inode);
>> > + Â if (!inode->i_nlink) {
>> > + Â Â Â Â Â WARN_ON(atomic_long_read(&inode->i_sb->s_remove_count) == 0);
>> > + Â Â Â Â Â atomic_long_dec(&inode->i_sb->s_remove_count);
>> > + Â }
>>
>> Umm... ÂThat relies on ->destroy_inode() doing nothing stupid; granted,
>> all work on actual file removal should've been done in ->evice_inode()
>> leaving only (RCU'd) freeing of in-core, but there are odd ones that
>> do strange things in ->destroy_inode() and I'm not sure that it's not
>> a Yet Another Remount Race(tm). ÂOTOH, it's clearly not worse than what
>> we used to have; just something to keep in mind for future work.
>>
> GFS2 is one of those cases. The issue is that when we enter
> ->evict_inode() with i_nlink 0, we do not know whether any other node
> still has the inode open. If it does, then we do not deallocate it in
> ->evict_inode() but instead just forget about it, just as if i_nlink was
>> 0 leaving the remaining opener(s) to do the deallocation later,

And does GFS2 care about read-only remount races because of that?
I.e. if an unlinked file is still open on another node, should we
prevent remounting read-only until it the file is released and
actually gone?

If that's not a requirement (and I don't see why it should be) then all is fine.

Thanks,
Miklos
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/