| Message ID | 87h72zes14.fsf_-_@email.froward.int.ebiederm.org (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [RFC] fuse: In fuse_flush only wait if someone wants the return code | expand |
On 07/29, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > > +static int fuse_flush_async(struct file *file, fl_owner_t id) > +{ > + struct inode *inode = file_inode(file); > + struct fuse_mount *fm = get_fuse_mount(inode); > + struct fuse_file *ff = file->private_data; > + struct fuse_flush_args *fa; > + int err; > + > + fa = kzalloc(sizeof(*fa), GFP_KERNEL); > + if (!fa) > + return -ENOMEM; > + > + fa->inarg.fh = ff->fh; > + fa->inarg.lock_owner = fuse_lock_owner_id(fm->fc, id); > + fa->args.opcode = FUSE_FLUSH; > + fa->args.nodeid = get_node_id(inode); > + fa->args.in_numargs = 1; > + fa->args.in_args[0].size = sizeof(fa->inarg); > + fa->args.in_args[0].value = &fa->inarg; > + fa->args.force = true; > + fa->args.end = fuse_flush_end; > + fa->inode = inode; > + __iget(inode); Hmm... who does iput() ? Oleg.
On Fri, Jul 29, 2022 at 10:47:32PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > On 07/29, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > > > > +static int fuse_flush_async(struct file *file, fl_owner_t id) > > +{ > > + struct inode *inode = file_inode(file); > > + struct fuse_mount *fm = get_fuse_mount(inode); > > + struct fuse_file *ff = file->private_data; > > + struct fuse_flush_args *fa; > > + int err; > > + > > + fa = kzalloc(sizeof(*fa), GFP_KERNEL); > > + if (!fa) > > + return -ENOMEM; > > + > > + fa->inarg.fh = ff->fh; > > + fa->inarg.lock_owner = fuse_lock_owner_id(fm->fc, id); > > + fa->args.opcode = FUSE_FLUSH; > > + fa->args.nodeid = get_node_id(inode); > > + fa->args.in_numargs = 1; > > + fa->args.in_args[0].size = sizeof(fa->inarg); > > + fa->args.in_args[0].value = &fa->inarg; > > + fa->args.force = true; > > + fa->args.end = fuse_flush_end; > > + fa->inode = inode; > > + __iget(inode); > > Hmm... who does iput() ? ... or holds ->i_lock as expected by __iget()...
diff --git a/fs/fuse/file.c b/fs/fuse/file.c index 05caa2b9272e..a4fccd859495 100644 --- a/fs/fuse/file.c +++ b/fs/fuse/file.c @@ -464,6 +464,62 @@ static void fuse_sync_writes(struct inode *inode) fuse_release_nowrite(inode); } +struct fuse_flush_args { + struct fuse_args args; + struct fuse_flush_in inarg; + struct inode *inode; +}; + +static void fuse_flush_end(struct fuse_mount *fm, struct fuse_args *args, int err) +{ + struct fuse_flush_args *fa = container_of(args, typeof(*fa), args); + + if (err == -ENOSYS) { + fm->fc->no_flush = 1; + err = 0; + } + + /* + * In memory i_blocks is not maintained by fuse, if writeback cache is + * enabled, i_blocks from cached attr may not be accurate. + */ + if (!err && fm->fc->writeback_cache) + fuse_invalidate_attr_mask(fa->inode, STATX_BLOCKS); + + kfree(fa); +} + +static int fuse_flush_async(struct file *file, fl_owner_t id) +{ + struct inode *inode = file_inode(file); + struct fuse_mount *fm = get_fuse_mount(inode); + struct fuse_file *ff = file->private_data; + struct fuse_flush_args *fa; + int err; + + fa = kzalloc(sizeof(*fa), GFP_KERNEL); + if (!fa) + return -ENOMEM; + + fa->inarg.fh = ff->fh; + fa->inarg.lock_owner = fuse_lock_owner_id(fm->fc, id); + fa->args.opcode = FUSE_FLUSH; + fa->args.nodeid = get_node_id(inode); + fa->args.in_numargs = 1; + fa->args.in_args[0].size = sizeof(fa->inarg); + fa->args.in_args[0].value = &fa->inarg; + fa->args.force = true; + fa->args.end = fuse_flush_end; + fa->inode = inode; + __iget(inode); + + err = fuse_simple_background(fm, &fa->args, GFP_KERNEL); + if (err) + fuse_flush_end(fm, &fa->args, err); + + return err; +} + static int fuse_flush(struct file *file, fl_owner_t id) { struct inode *inode = file_inode(file); @@ -495,6 +551,9 @@ static int fuse_flush(struct file *file, fl_owner_t id) if (fm->fc->no_flush) goto inval_attr_out; + if (current->flags & PF_EXITING) + return fuse_flush_async(file, id); + memset(&inarg, 0, sizeof(inarg)); inarg.fh = ff->fh; inarg.lock_owner = fuse_lock_owner_id(fm->fc, id);
In my very light testing this resolves a hang where a thread of the fuse server was accessing the fuse filesystem (the fuse server is serving up), when the fuse server is killed. The practical problem is that the fuse server file descriptor was being closed after the file descriptor into the fuse filesystem so that the fuse filesystem operations were being blocked for instead of being aborted. Simply skipping the unnecessary wait resolves this issue. This is just a proof of concept and someone should look to see if the fuse max_background limit could cause a problem with this approach. Additionally testing PF_EXITING is a very crude way to tell if someone wants the return code from the vfs flush operation. As such in the long run it probably makes sense to get some direct vfs support for knowing if flush needs to block until all of the flushing is complete and a status/return code can be returned. Unless I have missed something this is a generic optimization that can apply to many network filesystems. Al, vfs folks? Signed-off-by: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com> --- fs/fuse/file.c | 59 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 59 insertions(+)