Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1477150

Re: [PATCH 2/7] fs/locks: Replace lg_global with a percpu-rwsem

Show all headers | View raw

On Tue, Sep 06, 2016 at 03:58:00AM +0200, Andreas Mohr wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> [no properly binding reference via In-Reply-To: available thus manually re-creating, sorry]
> 
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/9/5/832

Subscribe to lkml already.. also lkml.org is near useless these days,
please use any other archive.

> Two thoughts:
> 
> ***multiple locks
> 
> Don't have much insight into this
> (didn't spend much thinking on this),
> but of course it's unfortunate
> that two lock types need to be serviced
> rather than having the atomic handling exchange area/section
> be sufficiently guarded by one lock only
> (the question here could possibly be:
> what kind of currently existing
> structural disadvantage/layer distribution
> prevents us from being able to
> have things simply serviced
> within one granular lock area only?)

percpu rwsem is a sleeping lock, flc_flock is not. flc_flock also nests
under other non-sleeping locks, and therefore cannot (trivially) be made
a sleeping lock.

This is in the Changelog.

Furthermore, in the fast path of percpu_{down,up}_read() are exactly 0
atomic/serializing instructions.

> ***lock handling
> 
> > +	percpu_down_read(&file_rwsem);
> >  	spin_lock(&ctx->flc_lock);
> 
> 
> >  	spin_unlock(&ctx->flc_lock);
> > +	percpu_up_read(&file_rwsem);
> 
> 
> These are repeated multiple times in this commit, thus error-prone.
> 
> A possibly good way to commit-micro-manage this would be:
> 1. commit shoves things into a newly created encapsulation/wrapper helper
>    stuff_lock(&flc_lock);  /* <---- naming surely can be improved here */

No, because not all instances of flc_flock need the percpu-rwsem held,
creating such a wrapper could mistakenly create the impression it
should.

> That way it is pretty much guaranteed that:
> a) neither one nor the other lock type
>    will get forgotten later, at a specific use site

That's what we have lockdep_assert_held() for. Note how this patch also
introduces percpu_rwsem_assert_held() usage, this insures we shall never
'forget' the appropriate locking.

> b) lock order will be correctly maintained at all times
>    (AB-BA deadlock......)

lockdep is rather good at finding those, also might_sleep() debugging
would trivially catch those since percpu-rwsem is a sleeping lock while
fcl_flock is not.

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: [PATCH 2/7] fs/locks: Replace lg_global with a percpu-rwsem Andreas Mohr <andi@lisas.de> - 2016-09-06 04:00 +0200
  Re: [PATCH 2/7] fs/locks: Replace lg_global with a percpu-rwsem Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-09-06 10:30 +0200
    Re: [PATCH 2/7] fs/locks: Replace lg_global with a percpu-rwsem Andreas Mohr <andi@lisas.de> - 2016-09-06 10:40 +0200
      Re: [PATCH 2/7] fs/locks: Replace lg_global with a percpu-rwsem Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-09-06 11:10 +0200

csiph-web