[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YoOy40sGQv4DjmAq@casper.infradead.org>
Date: Tue, 17 May 2022 15:36:19 +0100
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To: Xiubo Li <xiubli@...hat.com>
Cc: jlayton@...nel.org, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, idryomov@...il.com,
vshankar@...hat.com, ceph-devel@...r.kernel.org,
dchinner@...hat.com, hch@....de, arnd@...db.de, mcgrof@...nel.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] ceph: wait the first reply of inflight async
unlink
On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 08:55:49PM +0800, Xiubo Li wrote:
> +int ceph_wait_on_conflict_unlink(struct dentry *dentry)
> +{
> + struct ceph_fs_client *fsc = ceph_sb_to_client(dentry->d_sb);
> + struct dentry *pdentry = dentry->d_parent;
> + struct dentry *udentry, *found = NULL;
> + struct ceph_dentry_info *di;
> + struct qstr dname;
> + u32 hash = dentry->d_name.hash;
> + int err;
> +
> + dname.name = dentry->d_name.name;
> + dname.len = dentry->d_name.len;
> +
> + rcu_read_lock();
> + hash_for_each_possible_rcu(fsc->async_unlink_conflict, di,
> + hnode, hash) {
> + udentry = di->dentry;
> +
> + spin_lock(&udentry->d_lock);
> + if (udentry->d_name.hash != hash)
> + goto next;
> + if (unlikely(udentry->d_parent != pdentry))
> + goto next;
> + if (!hash_hashed(&di->hnode))
> + goto next;
> +
> + if (!test_bit(CEPH_DENTRY_ASYNC_UNLINK_BIT, &di->flags))
> + pr_warn("%s dentry %p:%pd async unlink bit is not set\n",
> + __func__, dentry, dentry);
> +
> + if (d_compare(pdentry, udentry, &dname))
> + goto next;
> +
> + spin_unlock(&udentry->d_lock);
> + found = dget(udentry);
> + break;
> +next:
> + spin_unlock(&udentry->d_lock);
> + }
> + rcu_read_unlock();
> +
> + if (likely(!found))
> + return 0;
> +
> + dout("%s dentry %p:%pd conflict with old %p:%pd\n", __func__,
> + dentry, dentry, found, found);
> +
> + err = wait_on_bit(&di->flags, CEPH_DENTRY_ASYNC_UNLINK_BIT,
> + TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
Do you really want to use TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE here? If the window is
resized and you get a SIGWINCH, or a timer goes off and you get a
SIGALRM, you want to return -EINTR? I would suggest that TASK_KILLABLE
is probably the semantics that you want.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists