[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120217170713.GA26575@google.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 09:07:13 -0800
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
Cc: axboe@...nel.dk, ctalbott@...gle.com, rni@...gle.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/9] blkcg: drop unnecessary RCU locking
Hey, Vivek.
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 11:19:58AM -0500, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 02:37:51PM -0800, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > Now that blkg additions / removals are always done under both q and
> > blkcg locks, the only place RCU locking is used is blkg_lookup() for
> > lockless lookup. This patch drops unncessary RCU locking replacing it
> > with plain blkcg / q locking as necessary.
> >
> > * blkg_lookup_create() and blkiocg_pre_destroy() already perform
> > proper locking and don't need RCU. Dropped.
>
> But blkg_lookup_create() is called under rcu() to protect blkcg pointer.
> And blkg_lookup() is also happening under same rcu read lock. So I think
> you can't drop rcu from blkg_lookup_create().
Ooh, right. Will fix.
> > {
> > struct blkio_group *blkg, *new_blkg;
> >
> > - WARN_ON_ONCE(!rcu_read_lock_held());
>
> Don't we want to be called with rcu lock held needed for blkg_lookup()?
We want WARN_ON_ONCE(none of RCU, blkcg and queue lock held). We can
do it using lockdep macros inside #ifdef CONFIG_LOCKDEP. It's just a
bit clunky.
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists