From: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2026 18:29:18 +0000 (+0100)
Subject: shrinking rcu_read_lock() scope in d_alloc_parallel()
X-Git-Url: http://git.ipfire.org/cgi-bin/gitweb.cgi?a=commitdiff_plain;h=92cba84470632f3b75487171ca86b351a212c3f4;p=thirdparty%2Flinux.git

shrinking rcu_read_lock() scope in d_alloc_parallel()

	The current use of rcu_read_lock() uses in d_alloc_parallel()
is fairly opaque - the single large scope serves two purposes.

	We start with lookup in normal hash, and there rcu_read_lock()
scope puts __d_lookup_rcu() and subsequent lockref_get_not_dead() into
the same RCU read-side critical area.

	If no match is found, we proceed to lock the hash chain of
in-lookup hash and scan that for a match.  If we find a match, we want
to grab it and wait for lookup in progress to finish.  Since the bitlock
we use for these hash chains has to nest inside ->d_lock, we need to
unlock the chain first and use lockref_get_not_dead() on the match.
That has to be done without breaking the RCU read-side critical area,
and we use the same rcu_read_lock() scope to bridge over.

	The thing is, after having grabbed the reference (and it is
very unlikely to fail) we proceed to grab ->d_lock - d_wait_lookup()
and __d_lookup_unhash()/__d_wake_in_lookup_waiters() are using that for
serialization.	That makes lockref_get_not_dead() pointless - trying
to avoid grabbing ->d_lock for refcount increment, only to grab it
anyway immediately after that.	If we grab ->d_lock first and replace
lockref_get_not_dead() with direct check for sign and increment if
non-negative we can move rcu_read_unlock() to immediately after grabbing
->d_lock.  Moreover, we don't need the RCU read-side critical area to
be contiguous since before earlier __d_lookup_rcu() - we can just as
well terminate the earlier one ASAP and call rcu_read_lock() again only
after having found a match (if any) in the in-lookup hash chain.

	That makes the entire thing easier to follow and the purpose
of those rcu_read_lock() calls easier to describe - the first scope is
for __d_lookup_rcu() + lockref_get_not_dead(), the second one bridges
over from the bitlock scope to the ->d_lock scope on the match found in
in-lookup hash.

Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
---

diff --git a/fs/dcache.c b/fs/dcache.c
index 94749442fa689..beb0523c33047 100644
--- a/fs/dcache.c
+++ b/fs/dcache.c
@@ -2743,38 +2743,33 @@ struct dentry *d_alloc_parallel(struct dentry *parent,
 	spin_unlock(&parent->d_lock);
 
 retry:
-	rcu_read_lock();
 	seq = smp_load_acquire(&parent->d_inode->i_dir_seq);
 	r_seq = read_seqbegin(&rename_lock);
+	rcu_read_lock();
 	dentry = __d_lookup_rcu(parent, name, &d_seq);
 	if (unlikely(dentry)) {
 		if (!lockref_get_not_dead(&dentry->d_lockref)) {
 			rcu_read_unlock();
 			goto retry;
 		}
+		rcu_read_unlock();
 		if (read_seqcount_retry(&dentry->d_seq, d_seq)) {
-			rcu_read_unlock();
 			dput(dentry);
 			goto retry;
 		}
-		rcu_read_unlock();
 		dput(new);
 		return dentry;
 	}
-	if (unlikely(read_seqretry(&rename_lock, r_seq))) {
-		rcu_read_unlock();
+	rcu_read_unlock();
+	if (unlikely(read_seqretry(&rename_lock, r_seq)))
 		goto retry;
-	}
 
-	if (unlikely(seq & 1)) {
-		rcu_read_unlock();
+	if (unlikely(seq & 1))
 		goto retry;
-	}
 
 	hlist_bl_lock(b);
 	if (unlikely(READ_ONCE(parent->d_inode->i_dir_seq) != seq)) {
 		hlist_bl_unlock(b);
-		rcu_read_unlock();
 		goto retry;
 	}
 	/*
@@ -2791,19 +2786,20 @@ retry:
 			continue;
 		if (!d_same_name(dentry, parent, name))
 			continue;
+		rcu_read_lock();
 		hlist_bl_unlock(b);
+		spin_lock(&dentry->d_lock);
+		rcu_read_unlock();
 		/* now we can try to grab a reference */
-		if (!lockref_get_not_dead(&dentry->d_lockref)) {
-			rcu_read_unlock();
+		if (unlikely(dentry->d_lockref.count < 0)) {
+			spin_unlock(&dentry->d_lock);
 			goto retry;
 		}
-
-		rcu_read_unlock();
 		/*
 		 * somebody is likely to be still doing lookup for it;
-		 * wait for them to finish
+		 * pin it and wait for them to finish
 		 */
-		spin_lock(&dentry->d_lock);
+		dget_dlock(dentry);
 		d_wait_lookup(dentry);
 		/*
 		 * it's not in-lookup anymore; in principle we should repeat
@@ -2824,7 +2820,6 @@ retry:
 		dput(new);
 		return dentry;
 	}
-	rcu_read_unlock();
 	hlist_bl_add_head(&new->d_in_lookup_hash, b);
 	hlist_bl_unlock(b);
 	return new;