[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210526152525.GY202121@locust>
Date: Wed, 26 May 2021 08:25:25 -0700
From: "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>
To: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Cc: Damien Le Moal <Damien.LeMoal@....com>,
"linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
"hch@...radead.org" <hch@...radead.org>,
Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
"ceph-devel@...r.kernel.org" <ceph-devel@...r.kernel.org>,
Chao Yu <yuchao0@...wei.com>,
"Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>,
Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@...nel.org>,
Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>,
Johannes Thumshirn <jth@...nel.org>,
"linux-cifs@...r.kernel.org" <linux-cifs@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org" <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net"
<linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org" <linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org>,
Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>,
Steve French <sfrench@...ba.org>, Ted Tso <tytso@....edu>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/13] mm: Add functions to lock invalidate_lock for two
mappings
On Wed, May 26, 2021 at 03:45:18PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Wed 26-05-21 12:11:43, Damien Le Moal wrote:
> > On 2021/05/26 19:07, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > On Tue 25-05-21 13:48:05, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > >> On Tue, May 25, 2021 at 03:50:41PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > >>> Some operations such as reflinking blocks among files will need to lock
> > >>> invalidate_lock for two mappings. Add helper functions to do that.
> > >>>
> > >>> Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
> > >>> ---
> > >>> include/linux/fs.h | 6 ++++++
> > >>> mm/filemap.c | 38 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > >>> 2 files changed, 44 insertions(+)
> > >>>
> > >>> diff --git a/include/linux/fs.h b/include/linux/fs.h
> > >>> index 897238d9f1e0..e6f7447505f5 100644
> > >>> --- a/include/linux/fs.h
> > >>> +++ b/include/linux/fs.h
> > >>> @@ -822,6 +822,12 @@ static inline void inode_lock_shared_nested(struct inode *inode, unsigned subcla
> > >>> void lock_two_nondirectories(struct inode *, struct inode*);
> > >>> void unlock_two_nondirectories(struct inode *, struct inode*);
> > >>>
> > >>> +void filemap_invalidate_down_write_two(struct address_space *mapping1,
> > >>> + struct address_space *mapping2);
> > >>> +void filemap_invalidate_up_write_two(struct address_space *mapping1,
> > >>
> > >> TBH I find myself wishing that the invalidate_lock used the same
> > >> lock/unlock style wrappers that we use for i_rwsem.
> > >>
> > >> filemap_invalidate_lock(inode1->mapping);
> > >> filemap_invalidate_lock_two(inode1->i_mapping, inode2->i_mapping);
> > >
> > > OK, and filemap_invalidate_lock_shared() for down_read()? I guess that
> > > works for me.
> >
> > What about filemap_invalidate_lock_read() and filemap_invalidate_lock_write() ?
> > That reminds the down_read()/down_write() without the slightly confusing down/up.
>
> Well, if we go for lock wrappers as Darrick suggested, I'd mirror naming
> used for inode_lock(). That is IMO the least confusing option... And that
> naming has _lock and _lock_shared suffixes.
I'd like filemap_invalidate_lock and filemap_invalidate_lock_shared.
--D
>
> Honza
>
> --
> Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>
> SUSE Labs, CR
Powered by blists - more mailing lists