[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <9a5d4c82-1ab3-e96d-98bb-369acc8404d1@fastmail.fm>
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2023 13:06:44 +0200
From: Bernd Schubert <bernd.schubert@...tmail.fm>
To: Kemeng Shi <shikemeng@...weicloud.com>, miklos@...redi.hu,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fuse: remove unneeded lock which protecting update of
congestion_threshold
On 9/14/23 17:45, Kemeng Shi wrote:
> Commit 670d21c6e17f6 ("fuse: remove reliance on bdi congestion") change how
> congestion_threshold is used and lock in
> fuse_conn_congestion_threshold_write is not needed anymore.
> 1. Access to supe_block is removed along with removing of bdi congestion.
> Then down_read(&fc->killsb) which protecting access to super_block is no
> needed.
> 2. Compare num_background and congestion_threshold without holding
> bg_lock. Then there is no need to hold bg_lock to update
> congestion_threshold.
>
> Signed-off-by: Kemeng Shi <shikemeng@...weicloud.com>
> ---
> fs/fuse/control.c | 4 ----
> 1 file changed, 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/fuse/control.c b/fs/fuse/control.c
> index 247ef4f76761..c5d7bf80efed 100644
> --- a/fs/fuse/control.c
> +++ b/fs/fuse/control.c
> @@ -174,11 +174,7 @@ static ssize_t fuse_conn_congestion_threshold_write(struct file *file,
> if (!fc)
> goto out;
>
> - down_read(&fc->killsb);
> - spin_lock(&fc->bg_lock);
> fc->congestion_threshold = val;
> - spin_unlock(&fc->bg_lock);
> - up_read(&fc->killsb);
> fuse_conn_put(fc);
> out:
> return ret;
Yeah, I don't see readers holding any of these locks.
I just wonder if it wouldn't be better to use WRITE_ONCE to ensure a
single atomic operation to store the value.
Thanks,
Bernd
Powered by blists - more mailing lists