From: "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@kernel.org>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
Cc: Bernd Schubert <bernd.schubert@fastmail.fm>,
Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@gmail.com>,
brauner@kernel.org, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] vfs: add inode lockdep assertions
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2023 10:07:24 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20230906170724.GI28202@frogsfrogsfrogs> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ZPiiDj1T3lGp2w2c@casper.infradead.org>
On Wed, Sep 06, 2023 at 05:00:14PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 06, 2023 at 08:29:48AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > Or hoist the XFS mrlock, because it actually /does/ know if the rwsem is
> > held in shared or exclusive mode.
>
> ... or to put it another way, if we had rwsem_is_write_locked(),
> we could get rid of mrlock?
>
> diff --git a/fs/xfs/mrlock.h b/fs/xfs/mrlock.h
> index 79155eec341b..5530f03aaed1 100644
> --- a/fs/xfs/mrlock.h
> +++ b/fs/xfs/mrlock.h
> @@ -10,18 +10,10 @@
>
> typedef struct {
> struct rw_semaphore mr_lock;
> -#if defined(DEBUG) || defined(XFS_WARN)
> - int mr_writer;
> -#endif
> } mrlock_t;
>
> -#if defined(DEBUG) || defined(XFS_WARN)
> -#define mrinit(mrp, name) \
> - do { (mrp)->mr_writer = 0; init_rwsem(&(mrp)->mr_lock); } while (0)
> -#else
> #define mrinit(mrp, name) \
> do { init_rwsem(&(mrp)->mr_lock); } while (0)
> -#endif
>
> #define mrlock_init(mrp, t,n,s) mrinit(mrp, n)
> #define mrfree(mrp) do { } while (0)
> @@ -34,9 +26,6 @@ static inline void mraccess_nested(mrlock_t *mrp, int subclass)
> static inline void mrupdate_nested(mrlock_t *mrp, int subclass)
> {
> down_write_nested(&mrp->mr_lock, subclass);
> -#if defined(DEBUG) || defined(XFS_WARN)
> - mrp->mr_writer = 1;
> -#endif
> }
>
> static inline int mrtryaccess(mrlock_t *mrp)
> @@ -48,17 +37,11 @@ static inline int mrtryupdate(mrlock_t *mrp)
> {
> if (!down_write_trylock(&mrp->mr_lock))
> return 0;
> -#if defined(DEBUG) || defined(XFS_WARN)
> - mrp->mr_writer = 1;
> -#endif
> return 1;
> }
>
> static inline void mrunlock_excl(mrlock_t *mrp)
> {
> -#if defined(DEBUG) || defined(XFS_WARN)
> - mrp->mr_writer = 0;
> -#endif
> up_write(&mrp->mr_lock);
> }
>
> @@ -69,9 +52,6 @@ static inline void mrunlock_shared(mrlock_t *mrp)
>
> static inline void mrdemote(mrlock_t *mrp)
> {
> -#if defined(DEBUG) || defined(XFS_WARN)
> - mrp->mr_writer = 0;
> -#endif
> downgrade_write(&mrp->mr_lock);
> }
>
> diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_inode.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_inode.c
> index 9e62cc500140..b99c3bd78c5e 100644
> --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_inode.c
> +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_inode.c
> @@ -361,7 +361,7 @@ xfs_isilocked(
> {
> if (lock_flags & (XFS_ILOCK_EXCL|XFS_ILOCK_SHARED)) {
> if (!(lock_flags & XFS_ILOCK_SHARED))
> - return !!ip->i_lock.mr_writer;
> + return rwsem_is_write_locked(&ip->i_lock.mr_lock);
You'd be better off converting this to:
return __xfs_rwsem_islocked(&ip->i_lock.mr_lock,
(lock_flags & XFS_ILOCK_SHARED));
And then fixing __xfs_rwsem_islocked to do:
static inline bool
__xfs_rwsem_islocked(
struct rw_semaphore *rwsem,
bool shared)
{
if (!debug_locks) {
if (!shared)
return rwsem_is_write_locked(rwsem);
return rwsem_is_locked(rwsem);
}
...
}
(and then getting rid of mrlock_t.h entirely)
> return rwsem_is_locked(&ip->i_lock.mr_lock);
> }
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/mmap_lock.h b/include/linux/mmap_lock.h
> index e05e167dbd16..277b8c96bbf9 100644
> --- a/include/linux/mmap_lock.h
> +++ b/include/linux/mmap_lock.h
> @@ -69,7 +69,7 @@ static inline void mmap_assert_locked(struct mm_struct *mm)
> static inline void mmap_assert_write_locked(struct mm_struct *mm)
> {
> lockdep_assert_held_write(&mm->mmap_lock);
> - VM_BUG_ON_MM(!rwsem_is_locked(&mm->mmap_lock), mm);
> + VM_BUG_ON_MM(!rwsem_is_write_locked(&mm->mmap_lock), mm);
> }
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_PER_VMA_LOCK
> diff --git a/include/linux/rwbase_rt.h b/include/linux/rwbase_rt.h
> index 1d264dd08625..3c25b14edc05 100644
> --- a/include/linux/rwbase_rt.h
> +++ b/include/linux/rwbase_rt.h
> @@ -31,6 +31,11 @@ static __always_inline bool rw_base_is_locked(struct rwbase_rt *rwb)
> return atomic_read(&rwb->readers) != READER_BIAS;
> }
>
> +static __always_inline bool rw_base_is_write_locked(struct rwbase_rt *rwb)
> +{
> + return atomic_read(&rwb->readers) == WRITER_BIAS;
> +}
> +
> static __always_inline bool rw_base_is_contended(struct rwbase_rt *rwb)
> {
> return atomic_read(&rwb->readers) > 0;
> diff --git a/include/linux/rwsem.h b/include/linux/rwsem.h
> index 1dd530ce8b45..241a12c6019e 100644
> --- a/include/linux/rwsem.h
> +++ b/include/linux/rwsem.h
> @@ -72,6 +72,11 @@ static inline int rwsem_is_locked(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
> return atomic_long_read(&sem->count) != 0;
> }
>
> +static inline int rwsem_is_write_locked(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
> +{
> + return atomic_long_read(&sem->count) & 1;
atomic_long_read(&sem->count) & RWSEM_WRITER_LOCKED ?
In one of the past "replace mrlock_t" threads I complained about
hardcoding this value instead of using the symbol. I saw it go by,
neglected to copy the url, and ten minutes later I can't find it. :(
--D
> +}
> +
> #define RWSEM_UNLOCKED_VALUE 0L
> #define __RWSEM_COUNT_INIT(name) .count = ATOMIC_LONG_INIT(RWSEM_UNLOCKED_VALUE)
>
> @@ -157,6 +162,11 @@ static __always_inline int rwsem_is_locked(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
> return rw_base_is_locked(&sem->rwbase);
> }
>
> +static __always_inline int rwsem_is_write_locked(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
> +{
> + return rw_base_is_write_locked(&sem->rwbase);
> +}
> +
> static __always_inline int rwsem_is_contended(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
> {
> return rw_base_is_contended(&sem->rwbase);
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-09-06 17:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-08-31 15:14 [RFC PATCH] vfs: add inode lockdep assertions Mateusz Guzik
2023-09-01 12:43 ` Christian Brauner
2023-09-06 15:20 ` Matthew Wilcox
2023-09-06 15:23 ` Bernd Schubert
2023-09-06 15:27 ` Matthew Wilcox
2023-09-14 13:16 ` Mateusz Guzik
2023-09-06 15:29 ` Darrick J. Wong
2023-09-06 16:00 ` Matthew Wilcox
2023-09-06 17:07 ` Darrick J. Wong [this message]
2023-09-06 18:33 ` Matthew Wilcox
2023-09-06 18:43 ` Darrick J. Wong
2023-09-06 19:01 ` Matthew Wilcox
2023-09-06 19:19 ` Darrick J. Wong
2023-09-06 21:10 ` Matthew Wilcox
2023-09-06 21:26 ` Darrick J. Wong
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=20230906170724.GI28202@frogsfrogsfrogs \
--to=djwong@kernel.org \
--cc=bernd.schubert@fastmail.fm \
--cc=brauner@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mjguzik@gmail.com \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
--cc=willy@infradead.org \
/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.