| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 21 May 2018 20:04:16 -0700
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To: Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...il.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org,
peterz@...radead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [RFC] bcachefs: SIX locks (shared/intent/exclusive)
On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 10:19:51PM -0400, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> New lock for bcachefs, like read/write locks but with a third state,
> intent.
>
> Intent locks conflict with each other, but not with read locks; taking a
> write lock requires first holding an intent lock.
Can you put something in the description that these are sleeping locks
(like mutexes), not spinning locks (like spinlocks)? (Yeah, I know
there's the opportunistic spin, but conceptually, they're sleeping locks).
Some other things I'd like documented:
- Any number of readers can hold the lock
- Once one thread acquires the lock for intent, further intent acquisitions
will block. May new readers acquire the lock?
- You cannot acquire the lock for write directly, you must acquire it for
intent first, then upgrade to write.
- Can you downgrade to read from intent, or downgrade from write back to
intent?
- Once you are trying to upgrade from intent to write, are new read
acquisitions blocked? (can readers starve writers?)
- When you drop the lock as a writer, do we prefer reader acquisitions
over intent acquisitions? That is, if we have a queue of RRIRIRIR,
and we drop the lock, does the queue look like II or IRIR?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists