From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
To: Jason Baron <jbaron@akamai.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] epoll: use the waitqueue lock to protect ep->wq
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2017 14:05:28 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20171214130528.GA10791@lst.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <d3e0d0c9-b9e2-c85d-5c67-30f6f80de42b@akamai.com>
On Thu, Dec 07, 2017 at 11:09:11AM -0500, Jason Baron wrote:
> On 12/06/2017 06:52 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > The eoll code currently always uses the unlocked waitqueue helpers for
> > ep->wq, but instead of holding the lock inside the waitqueue around these
> > calls, as expected by the epoll code uses its own lock. Given that the
> > waitqueue is not exposed to the rest of the kernel this actually works
> > ok at the moment, but prevents the epoll locking rules from being
> > enforced using lockdep. Remove ep->lock and use the waitqueue lock
> > to not only reduce the size of struct eventpoll but also make sure we
> > can assert locking invariations in the waitqueue code.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
>
> Probably should also fix the locking comments at the top of
> fs/eventpoll.c that refer to ep->lock...
Done. Note that while doing this I noticed that the epoll code
seems to have sketchy workarounds for the fact that it abused ep->poll
as the waitqueue lock that might be able to be removed now.
But I don't really dare to touch the guts of this code.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-12-14 13:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-12-06 23:52 waitqueue lockdep annotation Christoph Hellwig
2017-12-06 23:52 ` [PATCH 1/2] epoll: use the waitqueue lock to protect ep->wq Christoph Hellwig
2017-12-07 0:49 ` Ingo Molnar
2017-12-07 2:38 ` Andreas Dilger
2017-12-07 6:12 ` Ingo Molnar
2017-12-14 13:06 ` Christoph Hellwig
2017-12-07 16:09 ` Jason Baron
2017-12-14 13:05 ` Christoph Hellwig [this message]
2017-12-06 23:52 ` [PATCH 2/2] sched/wait: assert the wait_queue_head lock is held in __wake_up_common Christoph Hellwig
2017-12-07 0:50 ` Ingo Molnar
2017-12-14 13:08 ` Christoph Hellwig
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20171214130528.GA10791@lst.de \
--to=hch@lst.de \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=jbaron@akamai.com \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.