[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <X9t1xVTZ/ApIvPMg@mtj.duckdns.org>
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2020 10:14:13 -0500
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Ian Kent <raven@...maw.net>
Cc: Fox Chen <foxhlchen@...il.com>,
Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, dhowells@...hat.com,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
miklos@...redi.hu, ricklind@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
sfr@...b.auug.org.au, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/6] kernfs: proposed locking and concurrency
improvement
Hello,
On Thu, Dec 17, 2020 at 07:48:49PM +0800, Ian Kent wrote:
> > What could be done is to make the kernfs node attr_mutex
> > a pointer and dynamically allocate it but even that is too
> > costly a size addition to the kernfs node structure as
> > Tejun has said.
>
> I guess the question to ask is, is there really a need to
> call kernfs_refresh_inode() from functions that are usually
> reading/checking functions.
>
> Would it be sufficient to refresh the inode in the write/set
> operations in (if there's any) places where things like
> setattr_copy() is not already called?
>
> Perhaps GKH or Tejun could comment on this?
My memory is a bit hazy but invalidations on reads is how sysfs namespace is
implemented, so I don't think there's an easy around that. The only thing I
can think of is embedding the lock into attrs and doing xchg dance when
attaching it.
Thanks.
--
tejun
Powered by blists - more mailing lists