From: Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@hitachi.com>
To: Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@hp.com>
Cc: Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com>,
Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@suse.cz>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>,
"Chandramouleeswaran, Aswin" <aswin@hp.com>,
"Norton, Scott J" <scott.norton@hp.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 01/14] spinlock: A new lockref structure for lockless update of refcount
Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2013 01:58:24 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <51E18730.2020105@hitachi.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1373332204-10379-2-git-send-email-Waiman.Long@hp.com>
Hi,
(2013/07/09 10:09), Waiman Long wrote:> +/**
> + * lockref_put_or_lock - decrements count unless count <= 1 before decrement
> + * @lockcnt: pointer to lockref structure
> + * Return: 1 if count updated successfully or 0 if count <= 1 and lock taken
> + *
> + * The only difference between lockref_put_or_lock and lockref_put is that
> + * the former function will hold the lock on return while the latter one
> + * will free it on return.
> + */
> +static __always_inline int lockref_put_or_locked(struct lockref *lockcnt)
Here is a function name typo. _locked should be _lock.
And also, I think we should take a note here to tell this function does *not*
guarantee lockcnt->refcnt == 0 or 1 until unlocked if this returns 0.
> +{
> + spin_lock(&lockcnt->lock);
> + if (likely(lockcnt->refcnt > 1)) {
> + lockcnt->refcnt--;
> + spin_unlock(&lockcnt->lock);
> + return 1;
> + }
> + return 0;
> +}
Using this implementation guarantees lockcnt->refcnt == 0 or 1 until unlocked
if this returns 0.
However, the below one looks not guarantee it. Since lockref_add_unless
and spinlock are not done atomically, there is a chance for someone
to increment it right before locking.
Or, I missed something?
> +/**
> + * lockref_put_or_lock - Decrements count unless the count is <= 1
> + * otherwise, the lock will be taken
> + * @lockcnt: pointer to struct lockref structure
> + * Return: 1 if count updated successfully or 0 if count <= 1 and lock taken
> + */
> +int
> +lockref_put_or_lock(struct lockref *lockcnt)
> +{
> + if (lockref_add_unless(lockcnt, -1, 1))
> + return 1;
> + spin_lock(&lockcnt->lock);
> + return 0;
> +}
BTW, it looks that your dcache patch knows this and keeps double check for
the case of lockcnt->refcnt > 1 in dput().
Thank you,
--
Masami HIRAMATSU
IT Management Research Dept. Linux Technology Center
Hitachi, Ltd., Yokohama Research Laboratory
E-mail: masami.hiramatsu.pt@hitachi.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-07-13 16:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-07-09 1:09 [PATCH v6 00/14] Lockless update of reference count protected by spinlock Waiman Long
2013-07-09 1:09 ` [PATCH v6 01/14] spinlock: A new lockref structure for lockless update of refcount Waiman Long
2013-07-13 16:58 ` Masami Hiramatsu [this message]
2013-07-15 21:00 ` Waiman Long
2013-07-09 1:09 ` [PATCH v6 02/14] spinlock: Enable x86 architecture to do lockless refcount update Waiman Long
2013-07-09 1:09 ` [PATCH v6 03/14] dcache: Add a new helper function d_count() to return refcount Waiman Long
2013-07-11 13:48 ` Waiman Long
2013-07-09 1:09 ` [PATCH v6 04/14] auto-fs: replace direct access of d_count with the d_count() helper Waiman Long
2013-07-09 1:09 ` [PATCH v6 05/14] ceph-fs: " Waiman Long
2013-07-09 1:09 ` [PATCH v6 06/14] coda-fs: " Waiman Long
2013-07-09 1:09 ` Waiman Long
2013-07-09 1:09 ` [PATCH v6 07/14] config-fs: " Waiman Long
2013-07-09 1:09 ` [PATCH v6 08/14] ecrypt-fs: " Waiman Long
2013-07-09 1:09 ` [PATCH v6 09/14] file locking: " Waiman Long
2013-07-09 1:10 ` [PATCH v6 10/14] nfs: " Waiman Long
2013-07-09 1:10 ` [PATCH v6 11/14] nilfs2: " Waiman Long
2013-07-09 1:10 ` [PATCH v6 12/14] lustre-fs: Use the standard d_count() helper to access refcount Waiman Long
2013-07-10 9:47 ` Peng, Tao
2013-07-10 9:47 ` Peng, Tao
2013-07-09 1:10 ` [PATCH v6 13/14] dcache: rename d_count field of dentry to d_refcount Waiman Long
2013-07-09 1:10 ` [PATCH v6 14/14] dcache: Enable lockless update of refcount in dentry structure Waiman Long
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=51E18730.2020105@hitachi.com \
--to=masami.hiramatsu.pt@hitachi.com \
--cc=Waiman.Long@hp.com \
--cc=andi@firstfloor.org \
--cc=aswin@hp.com \
--cc=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=jlayton@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=mszeredi@suse.cz \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=scott.norton@hp.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.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.