linux/fs/pnode.c

407 lines
10 KiB
C
Raw Normal View History

/*
* linux/fs/pnode.c
*
* (C) Copyright IBM Corporation 2005.
* Released under GPL v2.
* Author : Ram Pai (linuxram@us.ibm.com)
*
*/
#include <linux/mnt_namespace.h>
#include <linux/mount.h>
#include <linux/fs.h>
#include <linux/nsproxy.h>
#include "internal.h"
#include "pnode.h"
/* return the next shared peer mount of @p */
static inline struct mount *next_peer(struct mount *p)
{
return list_entry(p->mnt_share.next, struct mount, mnt_share);
}
static inline struct mount *first_slave(struct mount *p)
{
return list_entry(p->mnt_slave_list.next, struct mount, mnt_slave);
}
static inline struct mount *next_slave(struct mount *p)
{
return list_entry(p->mnt_slave.next, struct mount, mnt_slave);
}
static struct mount *get_peer_under_root(struct mount *mnt,
struct mnt_namespace *ns,
const struct path *root)
{
struct mount *m = mnt;
do {
/* Check the namespace first for optimization */
if (m->mnt_ns == ns && is_path_reachable(m, m->mnt.mnt_root, root))
return m;
m = next_peer(m);
} while (m != mnt);
return NULL;
}
/*
* Get ID of closest dominating peer group having a representative
* under the given root.
*
* Caller must hold namespace_sem
*/
int get_dominating_id(struct mount *mnt, const struct path *root)
{
struct mount *m;
for (m = mnt->mnt_master; m != NULL; m = m->mnt_master) {
struct mount *d = get_peer_under_root(m, mnt->mnt_ns, root);
if (d)
return d->mnt_group_id;
}
return 0;
}
static int do_make_slave(struct mount *mnt)
{
struct mount *peer_mnt = mnt, *master = mnt->mnt_master;
struct mount *slave_mnt;
/*
* slave 'mnt' to a peer mount that has the
* same root dentry. If none is available then
* slave it to anything that is available.
*/
while ((peer_mnt = next_peer(peer_mnt)) != mnt &&
peer_mnt->mnt.mnt_root != mnt->mnt.mnt_root) ;
if (peer_mnt == mnt) {
peer_mnt = next_peer(mnt);
if (peer_mnt == mnt)
peer_mnt = NULL;
}
if (mnt->mnt_group_id && IS_MNT_SHARED(mnt) &&
list_empty(&mnt->mnt_share))
mnt_release_group_id(mnt);
list_del_init(&mnt->mnt_share);
mnt->mnt_group_id = 0;
if (peer_mnt)
master = peer_mnt;
if (master) {
list_for_each_entry(slave_mnt, &mnt->mnt_slave_list, mnt_slave)
slave_mnt->mnt_master = master;
list_move(&mnt->mnt_slave, &master->mnt_slave_list);
list_splice(&mnt->mnt_slave_list, master->mnt_slave_list.prev);
INIT_LIST_HEAD(&mnt->mnt_slave_list);
} else {
struct list_head *p = &mnt->mnt_slave_list;
while (!list_empty(p)) {
slave_mnt = list_first_entry(p,
struct mount, mnt_slave);
list_del_init(&slave_mnt->mnt_slave);
slave_mnt->mnt_master = NULL;
}
}
mnt->mnt_master = master;
CLEAR_MNT_SHARED(mnt);
return 0;
}
/*
* vfsmount lock must be held for write
*/
void change_mnt_propagation(struct mount *mnt, int type)
{
if (type == MS_SHARED) {
set_mnt_shared(mnt);
return;
}
do_make_slave(mnt);
if (type != MS_SLAVE) {
list_del_init(&mnt->mnt_slave);
mnt->mnt_master = NULL;
if (type == MS_UNBINDABLE)
mnt->mnt.mnt_flags |= MNT_UNBINDABLE;
else
mnt->mnt.mnt_flags &= ~MNT_UNBINDABLE;
}
}
/*
* get the next mount in the propagation tree.
* @m: the mount seen last
* @origin: the original mount from where the tree walk initiated
*
* Note that peer groups form contiguous segments of slave lists.
* We rely on that in get_source() to be able to find out if
* vfsmount found while iterating with propagation_next() is
* a peer of one we'd found earlier.
*/
static struct mount *propagation_next(struct mount *m,
struct mount *origin)
{
/* are there any slaves of this mount? */
if (!IS_MNT_NEW(m) && !list_empty(&m->mnt_slave_list))
return first_slave(m);
while (1) {
struct mount *master = m->mnt_master;
if (master == origin->mnt_master) {
struct mount *next = next_peer(m);
return (next == origin) ? NULL : next;
} else if (m->mnt_slave.next != &master->mnt_slave_list)
return next_slave(m);
/* back at master */
m = master;
}
}
smarter propagate_mnt() The current mainline has copies propagated to *all* nodes, then tears down the copies we made for nodes that do not contain counterparts of the desired mountpoint. That sets the right propagation graph for the copies (at teardown time we move the slaves of removed node to a surviving peer or directly to master), but we end up paying a fairly steep price in useless allocations. It's fairly easy to create a situation where N calls of mount(2) create exactly N bindings, with O(N^2) vfsmounts allocated and freed in process. Fortunately, it is possible to avoid those allocations/freeings. The trick is to create copies in the right order and find which one would've eventually become a master with the current algorithm. It turns out to be possible in O(nodes getting propagation) time and with no extra allocations at all. One part is that we need to make sure that eventual master will be created before its slaves, so we need to walk the propagation tree in a different order - by peer groups. And iterate through the peers before dealing with the next group. Another thing is finding the (earlier) copy that will be a master of one we are about to create; to do that we are (temporary) marking the masters of mountpoints we are attaching the copies to. Either we are in a peer of the last mountpoint we'd dealt with, or we have the following situation: we are attaching to mountpoint M, the last copy S_0 had been attached to M_0 and there are sequences S_0...S_n, M_0...M_n such that S_{i+1} is a master of S_{i}, S_{i} mounted on M{i} and we need to create a slave of the first S_{k} such that M is getting propagation from M_{k}. It means that the master of M_{k} will be among the sequence of masters of M. On the other hand, the nearest marked node in that sequence will either be the master of M_{k} or the master of M_{k-1} (the latter - in the case if M_{k-1} is a slave of something M gets propagation from, but in a wrong peer group). So we go through the sequence of masters of M until we find a marked one (P). Let N be the one before it. Then we go through the sequence of masters of S_0 until we find one (say, S) mounted on a node D that has P as master and check if D is a peer of N. If it is, S will be the master of new copy, if not - the master of S will be. That's it for the hard part; the rest is fairly simple. Iterator is in next_group(), handling of one prospective mountpoint is propagate_one(). It seems to survive all tests and gives a noticably better performance than the current mainline for setups that are seriously using shared subtrees. Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
2014-02-27 14:35:45 +00:00
static struct mount *next_group(struct mount *m, struct mount *origin)
{
smarter propagate_mnt() The current mainline has copies propagated to *all* nodes, then tears down the copies we made for nodes that do not contain counterparts of the desired mountpoint. That sets the right propagation graph for the copies (at teardown time we move the slaves of removed node to a surviving peer or directly to master), but we end up paying a fairly steep price in useless allocations. It's fairly easy to create a situation where N calls of mount(2) create exactly N bindings, with O(N^2) vfsmounts allocated and freed in process. Fortunately, it is possible to avoid those allocations/freeings. The trick is to create copies in the right order and find which one would've eventually become a master with the current algorithm. It turns out to be possible in O(nodes getting propagation) time and with no extra allocations at all. One part is that we need to make sure that eventual master will be created before its slaves, so we need to walk the propagation tree in a different order - by peer groups. And iterate through the peers before dealing with the next group. Another thing is finding the (earlier) copy that will be a master of one we are about to create; to do that we are (temporary) marking the masters of mountpoints we are attaching the copies to. Either we are in a peer of the last mountpoint we'd dealt with, or we have the following situation: we are attaching to mountpoint M, the last copy S_0 had been attached to M_0 and there are sequences S_0...S_n, M_0...M_n such that S_{i+1} is a master of S_{i}, S_{i} mounted on M{i} and we need to create a slave of the first S_{k} such that M is getting propagation from M_{k}. It means that the master of M_{k} will be among the sequence of masters of M. On the other hand, the nearest marked node in that sequence will either be the master of M_{k} or the master of M_{k-1} (the latter - in the case if M_{k-1} is a slave of something M gets propagation from, but in a wrong peer group). So we go through the sequence of masters of M until we find a marked one (P). Let N be the one before it. Then we go through the sequence of masters of S_0 until we find one (say, S) mounted on a node D that has P as master and check if D is a peer of N. If it is, S will be the master of new copy, if not - the master of S will be. That's it for the hard part; the rest is fairly simple. Iterator is in next_group(), handling of one prospective mountpoint is propagate_one(). It seems to survive all tests and gives a noticably better performance than the current mainline for setups that are seriously using shared subtrees. Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
2014-02-27 14:35:45 +00:00
while (1) {
while (1) {
struct mount *next;
if (!IS_MNT_NEW(m) && !list_empty(&m->mnt_slave_list))
return first_slave(m);
next = next_peer(m);
if (m->mnt_group_id == origin->mnt_group_id) {
if (next == origin)
return NULL;
} else if (m->mnt_slave.next != &next->mnt_slave)
break;
m = next;
}
/* m is the last peer */
while (1) {
struct mount *master = m->mnt_master;
if (m->mnt_slave.next != &master->mnt_slave_list)
return next_slave(m);
m = next_peer(master);
if (master->mnt_group_id == origin->mnt_group_id)
break;
if (master->mnt_slave.next == &m->mnt_slave)
break;
m = master;
}
if (m == origin)
return NULL;
}
smarter propagate_mnt() The current mainline has copies propagated to *all* nodes, then tears down the copies we made for nodes that do not contain counterparts of the desired mountpoint. That sets the right propagation graph for the copies (at teardown time we move the slaves of removed node to a surviving peer or directly to master), but we end up paying a fairly steep price in useless allocations. It's fairly easy to create a situation where N calls of mount(2) create exactly N bindings, with O(N^2) vfsmounts allocated and freed in process. Fortunately, it is possible to avoid those allocations/freeings. The trick is to create copies in the right order and find which one would've eventually become a master with the current algorithm. It turns out to be possible in O(nodes getting propagation) time and with no extra allocations at all. One part is that we need to make sure that eventual master will be created before its slaves, so we need to walk the propagation tree in a different order - by peer groups. And iterate through the peers before dealing with the next group. Another thing is finding the (earlier) copy that will be a master of one we are about to create; to do that we are (temporary) marking the masters of mountpoints we are attaching the copies to. Either we are in a peer of the last mountpoint we'd dealt with, or we have the following situation: we are attaching to mountpoint M, the last copy S_0 had been attached to M_0 and there are sequences S_0...S_n, M_0...M_n such that S_{i+1} is a master of S_{i}, S_{i} mounted on M{i} and we need to create a slave of the first S_{k} such that M is getting propagation from M_{k}. It means that the master of M_{k} will be among the sequence of masters of M. On the other hand, the nearest marked node in that sequence will either be the master of M_{k} or the master of M_{k-1} (the latter - in the case if M_{k-1} is a slave of something M gets propagation from, but in a wrong peer group). So we go through the sequence of masters of M until we find a marked one (P). Let N be the one before it. Then we go through the sequence of masters of S_0 until we find one (say, S) mounted on a node D that has P as master and check if D is a peer of N. If it is, S will be the master of new copy, if not - the master of S will be. That's it for the hard part; the rest is fairly simple. Iterator is in next_group(), handling of one prospective mountpoint is propagate_one(). It seems to survive all tests and gives a noticably better performance than the current mainline for setups that are seriously using shared subtrees. Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
2014-02-27 14:35:45 +00:00
}
smarter propagate_mnt() The current mainline has copies propagated to *all* nodes, then tears down the copies we made for nodes that do not contain counterparts of the desired mountpoint. That sets the right propagation graph for the copies (at teardown time we move the slaves of removed node to a surviving peer or directly to master), but we end up paying a fairly steep price in useless allocations. It's fairly easy to create a situation where N calls of mount(2) create exactly N bindings, with O(N^2) vfsmounts allocated and freed in process. Fortunately, it is possible to avoid those allocations/freeings. The trick is to create copies in the right order and find which one would've eventually become a master with the current algorithm. It turns out to be possible in O(nodes getting propagation) time and with no extra allocations at all. One part is that we need to make sure that eventual master will be created before its slaves, so we need to walk the propagation tree in a different order - by peer groups. And iterate through the peers before dealing with the next group. Another thing is finding the (earlier) copy that will be a master of one we are about to create; to do that we are (temporary) marking the masters of mountpoints we are attaching the copies to. Either we are in a peer of the last mountpoint we'd dealt with, or we have the following situation: we are attaching to mountpoint M, the last copy S_0 had been attached to M_0 and there are sequences S_0...S_n, M_0...M_n such that S_{i+1} is a master of S_{i}, S_{i} mounted on M{i} and we need to create a slave of the first S_{k} such that M is getting propagation from M_{k}. It means that the master of M_{k} will be among the sequence of masters of M. On the other hand, the nearest marked node in that sequence will either be the master of M_{k} or the master of M_{k-1} (the latter - in the case if M_{k-1} is a slave of something M gets propagation from, but in a wrong peer group). So we go through the sequence of masters of M until we find a marked one (P). Let N be the one before it. Then we go through the sequence of masters of S_0 until we find one (say, S) mounted on a node D that has P as master and check if D is a peer of N. If it is, S will be the master of new copy, if not - the master of S will be. That's it for the hard part; the rest is fairly simple. Iterator is in next_group(), handling of one prospective mountpoint is propagate_one(). It seems to survive all tests and gives a noticably better performance than the current mainline for setups that are seriously using shared subtrees. Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
2014-02-27 14:35:45 +00:00
/* all accesses are serialized by namespace_sem */
static struct user_namespace *user_ns;
static struct mount *last_dest, *last_source, *dest_master;
static struct mountpoint *mp;
static struct hlist_head *list;
static int propagate_one(struct mount *m)
{
struct mount *child;
int type;
/* skip ones added by this propagate_mnt() */
if (IS_MNT_NEW(m))
return 0;
/* skip if mountpoint isn't covered by it */
if (!is_subdir(mp->m_dentry, m->mnt.mnt_root))
return 0;
if (m->mnt_group_id == last_dest->mnt_group_id) {
type = CL_MAKE_SHARED;
} else {
struct mount *n, *p;
for (n = m; ; n = p) {
p = n->mnt_master;
if (p == dest_master || IS_MNT_MARKED(p)) {
while (last_dest->mnt_master != p) {
last_source = last_source->mnt_master;
last_dest = last_source->mnt_parent;
}
if (n->mnt_group_id != last_dest->mnt_group_id) {
last_source = last_source->mnt_master;
last_dest = last_source->mnt_parent;
}
break;
}
}
smarter propagate_mnt() The current mainline has copies propagated to *all* nodes, then tears down the copies we made for nodes that do not contain counterparts of the desired mountpoint. That sets the right propagation graph for the copies (at teardown time we move the slaves of removed node to a surviving peer or directly to master), but we end up paying a fairly steep price in useless allocations. It's fairly easy to create a situation where N calls of mount(2) create exactly N bindings, with O(N^2) vfsmounts allocated and freed in process. Fortunately, it is possible to avoid those allocations/freeings. The trick is to create copies in the right order and find which one would've eventually become a master with the current algorithm. It turns out to be possible in O(nodes getting propagation) time and with no extra allocations at all. One part is that we need to make sure that eventual master will be created before its slaves, so we need to walk the propagation tree in a different order - by peer groups. And iterate through the peers before dealing with the next group. Another thing is finding the (earlier) copy that will be a master of one we are about to create; to do that we are (temporary) marking the masters of mountpoints we are attaching the copies to. Either we are in a peer of the last mountpoint we'd dealt with, or we have the following situation: we are attaching to mountpoint M, the last copy S_0 had been attached to M_0 and there are sequences S_0...S_n, M_0...M_n such that S_{i+1} is a master of S_{i}, S_{i} mounted on M{i} and we need to create a slave of the first S_{k} such that M is getting propagation from M_{k}. It means that the master of M_{k} will be among the sequence of masters of M. On the other hand, the nearest marked node in that sequence will either be the master of M_{k} or the master of M_{k-1} (the latter - in the case if M_{k-1} is a slave of something M gets propagation from, but in a wrong peer group). So we go through the sequence of masters of M until we find a marked one (P). Let N be the one before it. Then we go through the sequence of masters of S_0 until we find one (say, S) mounted on a node D that has P as master and check if D is a peer of N. If it is, S will be the master of new copy, if not - the master of S will be. That's it for the hard part; the rest is fairly simple. Iterator is in next_group(), handling of one prospective mountpoint is propagate_one(). It seems to survive all tests and gives a noticably better performance than the current mainline for setups that are seriously using shared subtrees. Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
2014-02-27 14:35:45 +00:00
type = CL_SLAVE;
/* beginning of peer group among the slaves? */
if (IS_MNT_SHARED(m))
type |= CL_MAKE_SHARED;
}
smarter propagate_mnt() The current mainline has copies propagated to *all* nodes, then tears down the copies we made for nodes that do not contain counterparts of the desired mountpoint. That sets the right propagation graph for the copies (at teardown time we move the slaves of removed node to a surviving peer or directly to master), but we end up paying a fairly steep price in useless allocations. It's fairly easy to create a situation where N calls of mount(2) create exactly N bindings, with O(N^2) vfsmounts allocated and freed in process. Fortunately, it is possible to avoid those allocations/freeings. The trick is to create copies in the right order and find which one would've eventually become a master with the current algorithm. It turns out to be possible in O(nodes getting propagation) time and with no extra allocations at all. One part is that we need to make sure that eventual master will be created before its slaves, so we need to walk the propagation tree in a different order - by peer groups. And iterate through the peers before dealing with the next group. Another thing is finding the (earlier) copy that will be a master of one we are about to create; to do that we are (temporary) marking the masters of mountpoints we are attaching the copies to. Either we are in a peer of the last mountpoint we'd dealt with, or we have the following situation: we are attaching to mountpoint M, the last copy S_0 had been attached to M_0 and there are sequences S_0...S_n, M_0...M_n such that S_{i+1} is a master of S_{i}, S_{i} mounted on M{i} and we need to create a slave of the first S_{k} such that M is getting propagation from M_{k}. It means that the master of M_{k} will be among the sequence of masters of M. On the other hand, the nearest marked node in that sequence will either be the master of M_{k} or the master of M_{k-1} (the latter - in the case if M_{k-1} is a slave of something M gets propagation from, but in a wrong peer group). So we go through the sequence of masters of M until we find a marked one (P). Let N be the one before it. Then we go through the sequence of masters of S_0 until we find one (say, S) mounted on a node D that has P as master and check if D is a peer of N. If it is, S will be the master of new copy, if not - the master of S will be. That's it for the hard part; the rest is fairly simple. Iterator is in next_group(), handling of one prospective mountpoint is propagate_one(). It seems to survive all tests and gives a noticably better performance than the current mainline for setups that are seriously using shared subtrees. Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
2014-02-27 14:35:45 +00:00
/* Notice when we are propagating across user namespaces */
if (m->mnt_ns->user_ns != user_ns)
type |= CL_UNPRIVILEGED;
child = copy_tree(last_source, last_source->mnt.mnt_root, type);
if (IS_ERR(child))
return PTR_ERR(child);
child->mnt.mnt_flags &= ~MNT_LOCKED;
smarter propagate_mnt() The current mainline has copies propagated to *all* nodes, then tears down the copies we made for nodes that do not contain counterparts of the desired mountpoint. That sets the right propagation graph for the copies (at teardown time we move the slaves of removed node to a surviving peer or directly to master), but we end up paying a fairly steep price in useless allocations. It's fairly easy to create a situation where N calls of mount(2) create exactly N bindings, with O(N^2) vfsmounts allocated and freed in process. Fortunately, it is possible to avoid those allocations/freeings. The trick is to create copies in the right order and find which one would've eventually become a master with the current algorithm. It turns out to be possible in O(nodes getting propagation) time and with no extra allocations at all. One part is that we need to make sure that eventual master will be created before its slaves, so we need to walk the propagation tree in a different order - by peer groups. And iterate through the peers before dealing with the next group. Another thing is finding the (earlier) copy that will be a master of one we are about to create; to do that we are (temporary) marking the masters of mountpoints we are attaching the copies to. Either we are in a peer of the last mountpoint we'd dealt with, or we have the following situation: we are attaching to mountpoint M, the last copy S_0 had been attached to M_0 and there are sequences S_0...S_n, M_0...M_n such that S_{i+1} is a master of S_{i}, S_{i} mounted on M{i} and we need to create a slave of the first S_{k} such that M is getting propagation from M_{k}. It means that the master of M_{k} will be among the sequence of masters of M. On the other hand, the nearest marked node in that sequence will either be the master of M_{k} or the master of M_{k-1} (the latter - in the case if M_{k-1} is a slave of something M gets propagation from, but in a wrong peer group). So we go through the sequence of masters of M until we find a marked one (P). Let N be the one before it. Then we go through the sequence of masters of S_0 until we find one (say, S) mounted on a node D that has P as master and check if D is a peer of N. If it is, S will be the master of new copy, if not - the master of S will be. That's it for the hard part; the rest is fairly simple. Iterator is in next_group(), handling of one prospective mountpoint is propagate_one(). It seems to survive all tests and gives a noticably better performance than the current mainline for setups that are seriously using shared subtrees. Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
2014-02-27 14:35:45 +00:00
mnt_set_mountpoint(m, mp, child);
last_dest = m;
last_source = child;
if (m->mnt_master != dest_master) {
read_seqlock_excl(&mount_lock);
SET_MNT_MARK(m->mnt_master);
read_sequnlock_excl(&mount_lock);
}
hlist_add_head(&child->mnt_hash, list);
return 0;
}
/*
* mount 'source_mnt' under the destination 'dest_mnt' at
* dentry 'dest_dentry'. And propagate that mount to
* all the peer and slave mounts of 'dest_mnt'.
* Link all the new mounts into a propagation tree headed at
* source_mnt. Also link all the new mounts using ->mnt_list
* headed at source_mnt's ->mnt_list
*
* @dest_mnt: destination mount.
* @dest_dentry: destination dentry.
* @source_mnt: source mount.
* @tree_list : list of heads of trees to be attached.
*/
int propagate_mnt(struct mount *dest_mnt, struct mountpoint *dest_mp,
struct mount *source_mnt, struct hlist_head *tree_list)
{
smarter propagate_mnt() The current mainline has copies propagated to *all* nodes, then tears down the copies we made for nodes that do not contain counterparts of the desired mountpoint. That sets the right propagation graph for the copies (at teardown time we move the slaves of removed node to a surviving peer or directly to master), but we end up paying a fairly steep price in useless allocations. It's fairly easy to create a situation where N calls of mount(2) create exactly N bindings, with O(N^2) vfsmounts allocated and freed in process. Fortunately, it is possible to avoid those allocations/freeings. The trick is to create copies in the right order and find which one would've eventually become a master with the current algorithm. It turns out to be possible in O(nodes getting propagation) time and with no extra allocations at all. One part is that we need to make sure that eventual master will be created before its slaves, so we need to walk the propagation tree in a different order - by peer groups. And iterate through the peers before dealing with the next group. Another thing is finding the (earlier) copy that will be a master of one we are about to create; to do that we are (temporary) marking the masters of mountpoints we are attaching the copies to. Either we are in a peer of the last mountpoint we'd dealt with, or we have the following situation: we are attaching to mountpoint M, the last copy S_0 had been attached to M_0 and there are sequences S_0...S_n, M_0...M_n such that S_{i+1} is a master of S_{i}, S_{i} mounted on M{i} and we need to create a slave of the first S_{k} such that M is getting propagation from M_{k}. It means that the master of M_{k} will be among the sequence of masters of M. On the other hand, the nearest marked node in that sequence will either be the master of M_{k} or the master of M_{k-1} (the latter - in the case if M_{k-1} is a slave of something M gets propagation from, but in a wrong peer group). So we go through the sequence of masters of M until we find a marked one (P). Let N be the one before it. Then we go through the sequence of masters of S_0 until we find one (say, S) mounted on a node D that has P as master and check if D is a peer of N. If it is, S will be the master of new copy, if not - the master of S will be. That's it for the hard part; the rest is fairly simple. Iterator is in next_group(), handling of one prospective mountpoint is propagate_one(). It seems to survive all tests and gives a noticably better performance than the current mainline for setups that are seriously using shared subtrees. Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
2014-02-27 14:35:45 +00:00
struct mount *m, *n;
int ret = 0;
smarter propagate_mnt() The current mainline has copies propagated to *all* nodes, then tears down the copies we made for nodes that do not contain counterparts of the desired mountpoint. That sets the right propagation graph for the copies (at teardown time we move the slaves of removed node to a surviving peer or directly to master), but we end up paying a fairly steep price in useless allocations. It's fairly easy to create a situation where N calls of mount(2) create exactly N bindings, with O(N^2) vfsmounts allocated and freed in process. Fortunately, it is possible to avoid those allocations/freeings. The trick is to create copies in the right order and find which one would've eventually become a master with the current algorithm. It turns out to be possible in O(nodes getting propagation) time and with no extra allocations at all. One part is that we need to make sure that eventual master will be created before its slaves, so we need to walk the propagation tree in a different order - by peer groups. And iterate through the peers before dealing with the next group. Another thing is finding the (earlier) copy that will be a master of one we are about to create; to do that we are (temporary) marking the masters of mountpoints we are attaching the copies to. Either we are in a peer of the last mountpoint we'd dealt with, or we have the following situation: we are attaching to mountpoint M, the last copy S_0 had been attached to M_0 and there are sequences S_0...S_n, M_0...M_n such that S_{i+1} is a master of S_{i}, S_{i} mounted on M{i} and we need to create a slave of the first S_{k} such that M is getting propagation from M_{k}. It means that the master of M_{k} will be among the sequence of masters of M. On the other hand, the nearest marked node in that sequence will either be the master of M_{k} or the master of M_{k-1} (the latter - in the case if M_{k-1} is a slave of something M gets propagation from, but in a wrong peer group). So we go through the sequence of masters of M until we find a marked one (P). Let N be the one before it. Then we go through the sequence of masters of S_0 until we find one (say, S) mounted on a node D that has P as master and check if D is a peer of N. If it is, S will be the master of new copy, if not - the master of S will be. That's it for the hard part; the rest is fairly simple. Iterator is in next_group(), handling of one prospective mountpoint is propagate_one(). It seems to survive all tests and gives a noticably better performance than the current mainline for setups that are seriously using shared subtrees. Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
2014-02-27 14:35:45 +00:00
/*
* we don't want to bother passing tons of arguments to
* propagate_one(); everything is serialized by namespace_sem,
* so globals will do just fine.
*/
user_ns = current->nsproxy->mnt_ns->user_ns;
last_dest = dest_mnt;
last_source = source_mnt;
mp = dest_mp;
list = tree_list;
dest_master = dest_mnt->mnt_master;
/* all peers of dest_mnt, except dest_mnt itself */
for (n = next_peer(dest_mnt); n != dest_mnt; n = next_peer(n)) {
ret = propagate_one(n);
if (ret)
goto out;
smarter propagate_mnt() The current mainline has copies propagated to *all* nodes, then tears down the copies we made for nodes that do not contain counterparts of the desired mountpoint. That sets the right propagation graph for the copies (at teardown time we move the slaves of removed node to a surviving peer or directly to master), but we end up paying a fairly steep price in useless allocations. It's fairly easy to create a situation where N calls of mount(2) create exactly N bindings, with O(N^2) vfsmounts allocated and freed in process. Fortunately, it is possible to avoid those allocations/freeings. The trick is to create copies in the right order and find which one would've eventually become a master with the current algorithm. It turns out to be possible in O(nodes getting propagation) time and with no extra allocations at all. One part is that we need to make sure that eventual master will be created before its slaves, so we need to walk the propagation tree in a different order - by peer groups. And iterate through the peers before dealing with the next group. Another thing is finding the (earlier) copy that will be a master of one we are about to create; to do that we are (temporary) marking the masters of mountpoints we are attaching the copies to. Either we are in a peer of the last mountpoint we'd dealt with, or we have the following situation: we are attaching to mountpoint M, the last copy S_0 had been attached to M_0 and there are sequences S_0...S_n, M_0...M_n such that S_{i+1} is a master of S_{i}, S_{i} mounted on M{i} and we need to create a slave of the first S_{k} such that M is getting propagation from M_{k}. It means that the master of M_{k} will be among the sequence of masters of M. On the other hand, the nearest marked node in that sequence will either be the master of M_{k} or the master of M_{k-1} (the latter - in the case if M_{k-1} is a slave of something M gets propagation from, but in a wrong peer group). So we go through the sequence of masters of M until we find a marked one (P). Let N be the one before it. Then we go through the sequence of masters of S_0 until we find one (say, S) mounted on a node D that has P as master and check if D is a peer of N. If it is, S will be the master of new copy, if not - the master of S will be. That's it for the hard part; the rest is fairly simple. Iterator is in next_group(), handling of one prospective mountpoint is propagate_one(). It seems to survive all tests and gives a noticably better performance than the current mainline for setups that are seriously using shared subtrees. Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
2014-02-27 14:35:45 +00:00
}
smarter propagate_mnt() The current mainline has copies propagated to *all* nodes, then tears down the copies we made for nodes that do not contain counterparts of the desired mountpoint. That sets the right propagation graph for the copies (at teardown time we move the slaves of removed node to a surviving peer or directly to master), but we end up paying a fairly steep price in useless allocations. It's fairly easy to create a situation where N calls of mount(2) create exactly N bindings, with O(N^2) vfsmounts allocated and freed in process. Fortunately, it is possible to avoid those allocations/freeings. The trick is to create copies in the right order and find which one would've eventually become a master with the current algorithm. It turns out to be possible in O(nodes getting propagation) time and with no extra allocations at all. One part is that we need to make sure that eventual master will be created before its slaves, so we need to walk the propagation tree in a different order - by peer groups. And iterate through the peers before dealing with the next group. Another thing is finding the (earlier) copy that will be a master of one we are about to create; to do that we are (temporary) marking the masters of mountpoints we are attaching the copies to. Either we are in a peer of the last mountpoint we'd dealt with, or we have the following situation: we are attaching to mountpoint M, the last copy S_0 had been attached to M_0 and there are sequences S_0...S_n, M_0...M_n such that S_{i+1} is a master of S_{i}, S_{i} mounted on M{i} and we need to create a slave of the first S_{k} such that M is getting propagation from M_{k}. It means that the master of M_{k} will be among the sequence of masters of M. On the other hand, the nearest marked node in that sequence will either be the master of M_{k} or the master of M_{k-1} (the latter - in the case if M_{k-1} is a slave of something M gets propagation from, but in a wrong peer group). So we go through the sequence of masters of M until we find a marked one (P). Let N be the one before it. Then we go through the sequence of masters of S_0 until we find one (say, S) mounted on a node D that has P as master and check if D is a peer of N. If it is, S will be the master of new copy, if not - the master of S will be. That's it for the hard part; the rest is fairly simple. Iterator is in next_group(), handling of one prospective mountpoint is propagate_one(). It seems to survive all tests and gives a noticably better performance than the current mainline for setups that are seriously using shared subtrees. Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
2014-02-27 14:35:45 +00:00
/* all slave groups */
for (m = next_group(dest_mnt, dest_mnt); m;
m = next_group(m, dest_mnt)) {
/* everything in that slave group */
n = m;
do {
ret = propagate_one(n);
if (ret)
goto out;
n = next_peer(n);
} while (n != m);
}
out:
smarter propagate_mnt() The current mainline has copies propagated to *all* nodes, then tears down the copies we made for nodes that do not contain counterparts of the desired mountpoint. That sets the right propagation graph for the copies (at teardown time we move the slaves of removed node to a surviving peer or directly to master), but we end up paying a fairly steep price in useless allocations. It's fairly easy to create a situation where N calls of mount(2) create exactly N bindings, with O(N^2) vfsmounts allocated and freed in process. Fortunately, it is possible to avoid those allocations/freeings. The trick is to create copies in the right order and find which one would've eventually become a master with the current algorithm. It turns out to be possible in O(nodes getting propagation) time and with no extra allocations at all. One part is that we need to make sure that eventual master will be created before its slaves, so we need to walk the propagation tree in a different order - by peer groups. And iterate through the peers before dealing with the next group. Another thing is finding the (earlier) copy that will be a master of one we are about to create; to do that we are (temporary) marking the masters of mountpoints we are attaching the copies to. Either we are in a peer of the last mountpoint we'd dealt with, or we have the following situation: we are attaching to mountpoint M, the last copy S_0 had been attached to M_0 and there are sequences S_0...S_n, M_0...M_n such that S_{i+1} is a master of S_{i}, S_{i} mounted on M{i} and we need to create a slave of the first S_{k} such that M is getting propagation from M_{k}. It means that the master of M_{k} will be among the sequence of masters of M. On the other hand, the nearest marked node in that sequence will either be the master of M_{k} or the master of M_{k-1} (the latter - in the case if M_{k-1} is a slave of something M gets propagation from, but in a wrong peer group). So we go through the sequence of masters of M until we find a marked one (P). Let N be the one before it. Then we go through the sequence of masters of S_0 until we find one (say, S) mounted on a node D that has P as master and check if D is a peer of N. If it is, S will be the master of new copy, if not - the master of S will be. That's it for the hard part; the rest is fairly simple. Iterator is in next_group(), handling of one prospective mountpoint is propagate_one(). It seems to survive all tests and gives a noticably better performance than the current mainline for setups that are seriously using shared subtrees. Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
2014-02-27 14:35:45 +00:00
read_seqlock_excl(&mount_lock);
hlist_for_each_entry(n, tree_list, mnt_hash) {
m = n->mnt_parent;
if (m->mnt_master != dest_mnt->mnt_master)
CLEAR_MNT_MARK(m->mnt_master);
}
smarter propagate_mnt() The current mainline has copies propagated to *all* nodes, then tears down the copies we made for nodes that do not contain counterparts of the desired mountpoint. That sets the right propagation graph for the copies (at teardown time we move the slaves of removed node to a surviving peer or directly to master), but we end up paying a fairly steep price in useless allocations. It's fairly easy to create a situation where N calls of mount(2) create exactly N bindings, with O(N^2) vfsmounts allocated and freed in process. Fortunately, it is possible to avoid those allocations/freeings. The trick is to create copies in the right order and find which one would've eventually become a master with the current algorithm. It turns out to be possible in O(nodes getting propagation) time and with no extra allocations at all. One part is that we need to make sure that eventual master will be created before its slaves, so we need to walk the propagation tree in a different order - by peer groups. And iterate through the peers before dealing with the next group. Another thing is finding the (earlier) copy that will be a master of one we are about to create; to do that we are (temporary) marking the masters of mountpoints we are attaching the copies to. Either we are in a peer of the last mountpoint we'd dealt with, or we have the following situation: we are attaching to mountpoint M, the last copy S_0 had been attached to M_0 and there are sequences S_0...S_n, M_0...M_n such that S_{i+1} is a master of S_{i}, S_{i} mounted on M{i} and we need to create a slave of the first S_{k} such that M is getting propagation from M_{k}. It means that the master of M_{k} will be among the sequence of masters of M. On the other hand, the nearest marked node in that sequence will either be the master of M_{k} or the master of M_{k-1} (the latter - in the case if M_{k-1} is a slave of something M gets propagation from, but in a wrong peer group). So we go through the sequence of masters of M until we find a marked one (P). Let N be the one before it. Then we go through the sequence of masters of S_0 until we find one (say, S) mounted on a node D that has P as master and check if D is a peer of N. If it is, S will be the master of new copy, if not - the master of S will be. That's it for the hard part; the rest is fairly simple. Iterator is in next_group(), handling of one prospective mountpoint is propagate_one(). It seems to survive all tests and gives a noticably better performance than the current mainline for setups that are seriously using shared subtrees. Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
2014-02-27 14:35:45 +00:00
read_sequnlock_excl(&mount_lock);
return ret;
}
/*
* return true if the refcount is greater than count
*/
static inline int do_refcount_check(struct mount *mnt, int count)
{
return mnt_get_count(mnt) > count;
}
/*
* check if the mount 'mnt' can be unmounted successfully.
* @mnt: the mount to be checked for unmount
* NOTE: unmounting 'mnt' would naturally propagate to all
* other mounts its parent propagates to.
* Check if any of these mounts that **do not have submounts**
* have more references than 'refcnt'. If so return busy.
*
fs: scale mntget/mntput The problem that this patch aims to fix is vfsmount refcounting scalability. We need to take a reference on the vfsmount for every successful path lookup, which often go to the same mount point. The fundamental difficulty is that a "simple" reference count can never be made scalable, because any time a reference is dropped, we must check whether that was the last reference. To do that requires communication with all other CPUs that may have taken a reference count. We can make refcounts more scalable in a couple of ways, involving keeping distributed counters, and checking for the global-zero condition less frequently. - check the global sum once every interval (this will delay zero detection for some interval, so it's probably a showstopper for vfsmounts). - keep a local count and only taking the global sum when local reaches 0 (this is difficult for vfsmounts, because we can't hold preempt off for the life of a reference, so a counter would need to be per-thread or tied strongly to a particular CPU which requires more locking). - keep a local difference of increments and decrements, which allows us to sum the total difference and hence find the refcount when summing all CPUs. Then, keep a single integer "long" refcount for slow and long lasting references, and only take the global sum of local counters when the long refcount is 0. This last scheme is what I implemented here. Attached mounts and process root and working directory references are "long" references, and everything else is a short reference. This allows scalable vfsmount references during path walking over mounted subtrees and unattached (lazy umounted) mounts with processes still running in them. This results in one fewer atomic op in the fastpath: mntget is now just a per-CPU inc, rather than an atomic inc; and mntput just requires a spinlock and non-atomic decrement in the common case. However code is otherwise bigger and heavier, so single threaded performance is basically a wash. Signed-off-by: Nick Piggin <npiggin@kernel.dk>
2011-01-07 06:50:11 +00:00
* vfsmount lock must be held for write
*/
int propagate_mount_busy(struct mount *mnt, int refcnt)
{
struct mount *m, *child;
struct mount *parent = mnt->mnt_parent;
int ret = 0;
if (mnt == parent)
return do_refcount_check(mnt, refcnt);
/*
* quickly check if the current mount can be unmounted.
* If not, we don't have to go checking for all other
* mounts
*/
if (!list_empty(&mnt->mnt_mounts) || do_refcount_check(mnt, refcnt))
return 1;
for (m = propagation_next(parent, parent); m;
m = propagation_next(m, parent)) {
child = __lookup_mnt_last(&m->mnt, mnt->mnt_mountpoint);
if (child && list_empty(&child->mnt_mounts) &&
(ret = do_refcount_check(child, 1)))
break;
}
return ret;
}
/*
* NOTE: unmounting 'mnt' naturally propagates to all other mounts its
* parent propagates to.
*/
static void __propagate_umount(struct mount *mnt)
{
struct mount *parent = mnt->mnt_parent;
struct mount *m;
BUG_ON(parent == mnt);
for (m = propagation_next(parent, parent); m;
m = propagation_next(m, parent)) {
struct mount *child = __lookup_mnt_last(&m->mnt,
mnt->mnt_mountpoint);
/*
* umount the child only if the child has no
* other children
*/
if (child && list_empty(&child->mnt_mounts)) {
list_del_init(&child->mnt_child);
hlist_del_init_rcu(&child->mnt_hash);
hlist_add_before_rcu(&child->mnt_hash, &mnt->mnt_hash);
}
}
}
/*
* collect all mounts that receive propagation from the mount in @list,
* and return these additional mounts in the same list.
* @list: the list of mounts to be unmounted.
*
* vfsmount lock must be held for write
*/
int propagate_umount(struct hlist_head *list)
{
struct mount *mnt;
hlist_for_each_entry(mnt, list, mnt_hash)
__propagate_umount(mnt);
return 0;
}