[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090128103247.GK7532@hawkmoon.kerlabs.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 11:32:47 +0100
From: Louis Rilling <Louis.Rilling@...labs.com>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
cluster-devel@...hat.com, swhiteho@...hat.com, peterz@...radead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] configfs: Rework configfs_depend_item() locking
and make lockdep happy
On 27/01/09 20:13 -0800, Joel Becker wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 07:00:18PM +0100, Louis Rilling wrote:
> > configfs_depend_item() recursively locks all inodes mutex from configfs root to
> > the target item, which makes lockdep unhappy. The purpose of this recursive
> > locking is to ensure that the item tree can be safely parsed and that the target
> > item, if found, is not about to leave.
> >
> > This patch reworks configfs_depend_item() locking using configfs_dirent_lock.
> > Since configfs_dirent_lock protects all changes to the configfs_dirent tree, and
> > protects tagging of items to be removed, this lock can be used instead of the
> > inodes mutex lock chain.
> > This needs that the check for dependents be done atomically with
> > CONFIGFS_USET_DROPPING tagging.
> >
> > Now lockdep looks happy with configfs.
>
> This looks almost, but not quite right.
> In the create path, we do configfs_new_dirent() before we set
> sd->s_type. But configfs_new_dirent() attaches sd->s_sibling. So, in
> aonther thread, configfs_depend_prep() can traverse this s_sibling
> without CONFIGFS_USET_CREATING being set. This turns out to be safe
> because CONFIGFS_DIR is also not set - but boy I'd like a comment about
> that.
Definitely agreed. I should have written this comment instead of letting you
notice this.
> What if we're in mkdir(2) in one thread and another thread is
> trying to pin the parent directory? That is, we are inside
> configfs_mkdir(parent, new_dentry, mode). The other thread is doing
> configfs_depend_item(subsys, parent). With this patch, the other thread
> will not take parent->i_mutex. It will happily determine that
> parent is part of the tree and bump its s_dependent with no locking. Is
> this OK?
Yes this is the expected impact. It is OK because
1) under a same critical section of configfs_dirent_lock, depend_item()
checks that CONFIGFS_USET_DROPPING is not set and bumps s_dependent;
2) under a same critical section of configfs_dirent_lock, configfs_rmdir()
checks the s_dependent count and tries to set CONFIGFS_USET_DROPPING.
> If it is - isn't this patch good without any other reason? That
> is, aside from the issues of lockdep, isn't it better for
> configfs_depend_item() to never have to worry about the VFS locks other
> than the configfs root?
Yes, this patch may look like an improvement, independently from lockdep. I
think that locking is simpler this way, and this also removes the need for
configfs_depend_rollback(). Moreover this moves towards the management of
configfs_dirents protected by configfs_dirent_lock only. In the end, it's up to
you to judge if this is a good direction ;)
Thanks,
Louis
--
Dr Louis Rilling Kerlabs
Skype: louis.rilling Batiment Germanium
Phone: (+33|0) 6 80 89 08 23 80 avenue des Buttes de Coesmes
http://www.kerlabs.com/ 35700 Rennes
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (190 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists