[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200115065406.GB21219@lst.de>
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2020 07:54:06 +0100
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, cluster-devel@...hat.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: RFC: hold i_rwsem until aio completes
On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 10:47:07AM -0800, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> It would be helpful if we could also use the same lockdep logic
> for PageLocked. Again, it's a case where returning to userspace with
> PageLock held is fine, because we're expecting an interrupt to come in
> and drop the lock for us.
Yes, this is a very typical pattern for I/O. Besides the page and
buffer head bit locks it also applies to the semaphore in the xfs_buf
structure and probably various other places that currently used hand
crafted or legacy locking primitives to escape lockdep.
> Perhaps the right answer is, from lockdep's point of view, to mark the
> lock as being released at the point where we submit the I/O. Then
> in the completion path release the lock without telling lockdep we
> released it.
That is similar to what the fsfreeze code does, but I don't think it
is very optimal, as misses to track any dependencies after I/O
submission, and at least some of the completions paths do take
locks. But it might be a start.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists