From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
To: Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@gmail.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org,
peterz@infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [RFC] bcachefs: SIX locks (shared/intent/exclusive)
Date: Mon, 21 May 2018 20:04:16 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180522030416.GB18682@bombadil.infradead.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180522021951.1453-1-kent.overstreet@gmail.com>
On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 10:19:51PM -0400, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> New lock for bcachefs, like read/write locks but with a third state,
> intent.
>
> Intent locks conflict with each other, but not with read locks; taking a
> write lock requires first holding an intent lock.
Can you put something in the description that these are sleeping locks
(like mutexes), not spinning locks (like spinlocks)? (Yeah, I know
there's the opportunistic spin, but conceptually, they're sleeping locks).
Some other things I'd like documented:
- Any number of readers can hold the lock
- Once one thread acquires the lock for intent, further intent acquisitions
will block. May new readers acquire the lock?
- You cannot acquire the lock for write directly, you must acquire it for
intent first, then upgrade to write.
- Can you downgrade to read from intent, or downgrade from write back to
intent?
- Once you are trying to upgrade from intent to write, are new read
acquisitions blocked? (can readers starve writers?)
- When you drop the lock as a writer, do we prefer reader acquisitions
over intent acquisitions? That is, if we have a queue of RRIRIRIR,
and we drop the lock, does the queue look like II or IRIR?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-05-22 3:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-05-22 2:19 [PATCH] [RFC] bcachefs: SIX locks (shared/intent/exclusive) Kent Overstreet
2018-05-22 3:04 ` Matthew Wilcox [this message]
2018-05-22 3:49 ` Kent Overstreet
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=20180522030416.GB18682@bombadil.infradead.org \
--to=willy@infradead.org \
--cc=kent.overstreet@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).