[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YdxKiVHBUYvVP7W2@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2022 16:02:33 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
Tim Murray <timmurray@...gle.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] f2fs: move f2fs to use reader-unfair rwsems
On Mon, Jan 10, 2022 at 12:05:26AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Adding the locking primitive maintainers to this patch adding open coded
> locking primitives..
>
> On Sat, Jan 08, 2022 at 08:46:17AM -0800, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> > From: Tim Murray <timmurray@...gle.com>
> >
> > f2fs rw_semaphores work better if writers can starve readers,
> > especially for the checkpoint thread, because writers are strictly
> > more important than reader threads. This prevents significant priority
> > inversion between low-priority readers that blocked while trying to
> > acquire the read lock and a second acquisition of the write lock that
> > might be blocking high priority work.
*groan*... that's nowhere near enough Changelog to justify any of this.
Because next is a whole series of patches making things even worse
because lockdep no longers works as expected on this custom thing.
Can we start by describing the actual problem?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists