From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <SRS0=L7mj=JM=kvack.org=owner-linux-mm@kernel.org>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on
	aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,
	HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,
	SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0
Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99])
	by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEC78C433ED
	for <linux-mm@archiver.kernel.org>; Thu, 15 Apr 2021 16:51:01 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17])
	by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 715AB611AB
	for <linux-mm@archiver.kernel.org>; Thu, 15 Apr 2021 16:51:01 +0000 (UTC)
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 715AB611AB
Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=zeniv.linux.org.uk
Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org
Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix)
	id E20946B006C; Thu, 15 Apr 2021 12:51:00 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40)
	id DCFCB6B0070; Thu, 15 Apr 2021 12:51:00 -0400 (EDT)
X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org
Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042)
	id C71CD6B0071; Thu, 15 Apr 2021 12:51:00 -0400 (EDT)
X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org
Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0148.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.148])
	by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6AFD6B006C
	for <linux-mm@kvack.org>; Thu, 15 Apr 2021 12:51:00 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from smtpin14.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251])
	by forelay02.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C35E362C
	for <linux-mm@kvack.org>; Thu, 15 Apr 2021 16:51:00 +0000 (UTC)
X-FDA: 78035191080.14.31D3E69
Received: from zeniv-ca.linux.org.uk (zeniv-ca.linux.org.uk [142.44.231.140])
	by imf21.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8AC8EE00011A
	for <linux-mm@kvack.org>; Thu, 15 Apr 2021 16:50:56 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from viro by zeniv-ca.linux.org.uk with local (Exim 4.94 #2 (Red Hat Linux))
	id 1lX5Ci-005Y53-1S; Thu, 15 Apr 2021 16:50:56 +0000
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2021 16:50:56 +0000
From: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
To: Gautham Ananthakrishna <gautham.ananthakrishna@oracle.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-mm@kvack.org, matthew.wilcox@oracle.com,
	khlebnikov@yandex-team.ru
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 1/6] dcache: sweep cached negative dentries to the
 end of list of siblings
Message-ID: <YHhu8PvSOkwkUqW7@zeniv-ca.linux.org.uk>
References: <1611235185-1685-1-git-send-email-gautham.ananthakrishna@oracle.com>
 <1611235185-1685-2-git-send-email-gautham.ananthakrishna@oracle.com>
 <YHZa4PWnWfUqkARi@zeniv-ca.linux.org.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <YHZa4PWnWfUqkARi@zeniv-ca.linux.org.uk>
X-Rspamd-Server: rspam03
X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 8AC8EE00011A
X-Stat-Signature: ib6y4p5or35sfttod81utk9f8h6i64aa
Received-SPF: none (ftp.linux.org.uk>: No applicable sender policy available) receiver=imf21; identity=mailfrom; envelope-from="<viro@ftp.linux.org.uk>"; helo=zeniv-ca.linux.org.uk; client-ip=142.44.231.140
X-HE-DKIM-Result: none/none
X-HE-Tag: 1618505456-901551
X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4
Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org
List-ID: <linux-mm.kvack.org>

On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 03:00:48AM +0000, Al Viro wrote:

> Ugh...  So when dput() drives the refcount down to 0 you hit lock_parent()
> and only then bother to check if the sucker had been negative in the first
                                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                                              had zero refcount, of course.
> place?

> > @@ -1970,6 +2021,8 @@ void d_instantiate(struct dentry *entry, struct inode * inode)
> >  {
> >  	BUG_ON(!hlist_unhashed(&entry->d_u.d_alias));
> >  	if (inode) {
> > +		if (d_is_tail_negative(entry))
> > +			recycle_negative(entry);
> >  		security_d_instantiate(entry, inode);
> >  		spin_lock(&inode->i_lock);
> >  		__d_instantiate(entry, inode);
> 
> Wait a bloody minute.  What about d_instantiate_new() right next to it?

Another fun question: where's the proof that __d_add(dentry, non_NULL_inode)
won't happen to dentry marked tail-negative?  From a quick grep I see at
least one such place - on success cifs_do_create() does
        d_drop(direntry);
	d_add(direntry, newinode);
and it would bloody well evade what you are doing in d_instantiate().
Same seems to be true for nfs_link()...