From: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
To: Joel Becker <jlbec@evilplan.org>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, akmp@suse.cz, rjw@sisk.pl,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] jbd: Remove j_barrier mutex
Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2012 20:49:45 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120102194945.GD3626@quack.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20111227185100.GA30094@dhcp-172-17-9-228.mtv.corp.google.com>
On Tue 27-12-11 10:51:00, Joel Becker wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 03:07:45PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> > j_barrier mutex is used for serializing different journal lock operations. The
> > problem with it is that e.g. FIFREEZE ioctl results in process leaving kernel
> > with j_barrier mutex held which makes lockdep freak out. Also hibernation code
> > wants to freeze filesystem but it cannot do so because it then cannot hibernate
> > the system because of mutex being locked.
> >
> > So we remove j_barrier mutex and use direct wait on j_barrier_count instead.
> > Since locking journal is a rare operation we don't have to care about fairness
> > or such things.
> >
> > CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
>
> Strikes me as pretty reasonable.
>
> > void journal_lock_updates(journal_t *journal)
> > {
> > DEFINE_WAIT(wait);
> >
> > +wait:
> > + /* Wait for previous locked operation to finish */
> > + wait_event(journal->j_wait_transaction_locked,
> > + journal->j_barrier_count == 0);
> > +
> > spin_lock(&journal->j_state_lock);
> > + /*
> > + * Check reliably under the lock whether we are the ones winning the race
> > + * and locking the journal
> > + */
> > + if (journal->j_barrier_count > 0) {
> > + spin_unlock(&journal->j_state_lock);
> > + goto wait;
> > + }
>
> I suppose I'd prefer:
>
> do {
> wait_event(journal->j_wait_transaction_locked,
> journal->j_barrier_count == 0);
>
> spin_lock(&journal->j_state_lock);
> if (journal->j_barrier_count == 0)
> break;
> spin_unlock(&journal->j_state_lock);
> } while (1);
> ++journal->j_barrier_count;
>
> because I hate using goto for trivial loops, but that's a nitpick.
Frankly, I'm more used to parsing simple goto loops like mine than
infinite-loop + break statements in cases like this. So I'll take the
liberty of being a maintainer and keep the goto. But thanks for the
suggestion anyway.
> ACK.
Thanks for review!
Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
SUSE Labs, CR
prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-01-02 19:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-12-22 14:07 [PATCH] jbd: Remove j_barrier mutex Jan Kara
2011-12-22 20:34 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2011-12-27 18:51 ` Joel Becker
2012-01-02 19:49 ` Jan Kara [this message]
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=20120102194945.GD3626@quack.suse.cz \
--to=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=akmp@suse.cz \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=jlbec@evilplan.org \
--cc=linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rjw@sisk.pl \
/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).