On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 11:12:11AM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 04:54:08PM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 04:46:30PM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> >
> > [..]
> > > > +static ssize_t ovl_read_iter(struct kiocb *iocb, struct iov_iter *to)
> > > > +{
> > > > + struct file *file = iocb->ki_filp;
> > > > + bool isupper =
> > > > OVL_TYPE_UPPER(ovl_path_type(file->f_path.dentry));
> > > > + ssize_t ret = -EINVAL;
> > > > +
> > > > + if (likely(!isupper)) {
> > > > + const struct file_operations *fop = ovl_real_fop(file);
> > > > +
> > > > + if (likely(fop->read_iter))
> > > > + ret = fop->read_iter(iocb, to);
> > > > + } else {
> > > > + struct file *upperfile = filp_clone_open(file);
> > > > +
> > >
> > > IIUC, every read of lower file will call filp_clone_open(). Looking at the
> > > code of filp_clone_open(), I am concerned about the overhead of this call.
> > > Is it significant? Don't want to be paying too much of penalty for read
> > > operation on lower files. That would be a common case for containers.
> > >
> >
> > Looks like I read the code in reverse. So if I open a file read-only,
> > and if it has not been copied up, I will simply call read_iter() on
> > lower filesystem. But if file has been copied up, then I will call
> > filp_clone_open() and pay the cost. And this will continue till this
> > file is closed by caller.
> >
> > When file is opened again, by that time it is upper file and we will
> > install real fop in file (instead of overlay fop).
>
> Right.
>
> The lockdep issue seems to be real, we can't take i_mutex and
> s_vfs_rename_mutex
> while mmap_sem is locked. Fortunately copy up doesn't need mmap_sem, so we
> can
> do it while unlocked and retry the mmap.
>
> Here's an incremental workaround patch.
>
> I don't like adding such workarounds to the VFS/MM but they are really cheap
> for
> the non-overlay case and there doesn't appear to be an alternative in this
> case.
This incremental patch does fix the locking warning issue I was seeing.
Vivek
