All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Brian Foster <bfoster@redhat.com>
To: Pavel Reichl <preichl@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 1/4] xfs: Refactor xfs_isilocked()
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2020 12:03:08 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20201012160308.GH917726@bfoster> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20201009195515.82889-2-preichl@redhat.com>

On Fri, Oct 09, 2020 at 09:55:12PM +0200, Pavel Reichl wrote:
> Refactor xfs_isilocked() to use newly introduced __xfs_rwsem_islocked().
> __xfs_rwsem_islocked() is a helper function which encapsulates checking
> state of rw_semaphores hold by inode.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Pavel Reichl <preichl@redhat.com>
> Suggested-by: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com>
> Suggested-by: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@redhat.com>
> Suggested-by: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@oracle.com>
> Reviewed-by: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@oracle.com>
> ---
>  fs/xfs/xfs_inode.c | 48 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
>  fs/xfs/xfs_inode.h | 21 +++++++++++++-------
>  2 files changed, 54 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_inode.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_inode.c
> index c06129cffba9..7c1ceb4df4ec 100644
> --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_inode.c
> +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_inode.c
> @@ -345,9 +345,43 @@ xfs_ilock_demote(
>  }
>  
>  #if defined(DEBUG) || defined(XFS_WARN)
> -int
> +static inline bool
> +__xfs_rwsem_islocked(
> +	struct rw_semaphore	*rwsem,
> +	int			lock_flags)
> +{
> +	int			arg;
> +
> +	if (!debug_locks)
> +		return rwsem_is_locked(rwsem);
> +
> +	if (lock_flags & (1 << XFS_SHARED_LOCK_SHIFT)) {
> +		/*
> +		 * The caller could be asking if we have (shared | excl)
> +		 * access to the lock. Ask lockdep if the rwsem is
> +		 * locked either for read or write access.
> +		 *
> +		 * The caller could also be asking if we have only
> +		 * shared access to the lock. Holding a rwsem
> +		 * write-locked implies read access as well, so the
> +		 * request to lockdep is the same for this case.
> +		 */
> +		arg = -1;
> +	} else {
> +		/*
> +		 * The caller is asking if we have only exclusive access
> +		 * to the lock. Ask lockdep if the rwsem is locked for
> +		 * write access.
> +		 */
> +		arg = 0;
> +	}

Are these arg values documented somewhere? A quick look at the function
below didn't show anything..

Also, I find the pattern of shifting in the caller slightly confusing,
particularly with the 'lock_flags' name being passed down through the
caller. Any reason we couldn't pass the shift value as a parameter and
do the shift at the top of the function so the logic is clear and in one
place?

> +
> +	return lockdep_is_held_type(rwsem, arg);
> +}
> +
> +bool
>  xfs_isilocked(
> -	xfs_inode_t		*ip,
> +	struct xfs_inode	*ip,
>  	uint			lock_flags)
>  {
>  	if (lock_flags & (XFS_ILOCK_EXCL|XFS_ILOCK_SHARED)) {
...
> diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_inode.h b/fs/xfs/xfs_inode.h
> index e9a8bb184d1f..77776af75c77 100644
> --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_inode.h
> +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_inode.h
> @@ -268,12 +268,19 @@ static inline void xfs_ifunlock(struct xfs_inode *ip)
>   * Bit ranges:	1<<1  - 1<<16-1 -- iolock/ilock modes (bitfield)
>   *		1<<16 - 1<<32-1 -- lockdep annotation (integers)
>   */
> -#define	XFS_IOLOCK_EXCL		(1<<0)
> -#define	XFS_IOLOCK_SHARED	(1<<1)
> -#define	XFS_ILOCK_EXCL		(1<<2)
> -#define	XFS_ILOCK_SHARED	(1<<3)
> -#define	XFS_MMAPLOCK_EXCL	(1<<4)
> -#define	XFS_MMAPLOCK_SHARED	(1<<5)
> +
> +#define XFS_IOLOCK_FLAG_SHIFT	0
> +#define XFS_ILOCK_FLAG_SHIFT	2
> +#define XFS_MMAPLOCK_FLAG_SHIFT	4
> +
> +#define XFS_SHARED_LOCK_SHIFT	1
> +
> +#define XFS_IOLOCK_EXCL		(1 << (XFS_IOLOCK_FLAG_SHIFT))
> +#define XFS_IOLOCK_SHARED	(XFS_IOLOCK_EXCL << (XFS_SHARED_LOCK_SHIFT))
> +#define XFS_ILOCK_EXCL		(1 << (XFS_ILOCK_FLAG_SHIFT))
> +#define XFS_ILOCK_SHARED	(XFS_ILOCK_EXCL << (XFS_SHARED_LOCK_SHIFT))
> +#define XFS_MMAPLOCK_EXCL	(1 << (XFS_MMAPLOCK_FLAG_SHIFT))
> +#define XFS_MMAPLOCK_SHARED	(XFS_MMAPLOCK_EXCL << (XFS_SHARED_LOCK_SHIFT))
>  

Any reason for the extra params around the shift values?

Brian

>  #define XFS_LOCK_MASK		(XFS_IOLOCK_EXCL | XFS_IOLOCK_SHARED \
>  				| XFS_ILOCK_EXCL | XFS_ILOCK_SHARED \
> @@ -412,7 +419,7 @@ void		xfs_ilock(xfs_inode_t *, uint);
>  int		xfs_ilock_nowait(xfs_inode_t *, uint);
>  void		xfs_iunlock(xfs_inode_t *, uint);
>  void		xfs_ilock_demote(xfs_inode_t *, uint);
> -int		xfs_isilocked(xfs_inode_t *, uint);
> +bool		xfs_isilocked(struct xfs_inode *, uint);
>  uint		xfs_ilock_data_map_shared(struct xfs_inode *);
>  uint		xfs_ilock_attr_map_shared(struct xfs_inode *);
>  
> -- 
> 2.26.2
> 


  reply	other threads:[~2020-10-12 16:03 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-10-09 19:55 [PATCH v11 0/4] xfs: Remove wrappers for some semaphores Pavel Reichl
2020-10-09 19:55 ` [PATCH v11 1/4] xfs: Refactor xfs_isilocked() Pavel Reichl
2020-10-12 16:03   ` Brian Foster [this message]
2020-10-12 21:28     ` Darrick J. Wong
2020-10-13 11:04       ` Brian Foster
2020-10-14 21:04     ` Pavel Reichl
2020-10-15 10:32       ` Brian Foster
2020-10-15  8:20   ` Christoph Hellwig
2020-10-09 19:55 ` [PATCH v11 2/4] xfs: clean up whitespace in xfs_isilocked() calls Pavel Reichl
2020-10-12 16:03   ` Brian Foster
2020-10-15  8:17   ` Christoph Hellwig
2020-10-09 19:55 ` [PATCH v11 3/4] xfs: xfs_isilocked() can only check a single lock type Pavel Reichl
2020-10-12 16:03   ` Brian Foster
2020-10-15  8:17   ` Christoph Hellwig
2020-10-09 19:55 ` [PATCH v11 4/4] xfs: replace mrlock_t with rw_semaphores Pavel Reichl
2020-10-12 16:04   ` Brian Foster
2020-10-12 20:44     ` Pavel Reichl
2020-10-13 11:04       ` Brian Foster
2020-10-13 13:39         ` Pavel Reichl
2020-10-13 13:49           ` Brian Foster
2020-10-12 21:02     ` Pavel Reichl
2020-10-12 21:30       ` Darrick J. Wong
2020-10-13 11:07       ` Brian Foster
2020-10-15  8:21   ` 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=20201012160308.GH917726@bfoster \
    --to=bfoster@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=preichl@redhat.com \
    /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.