From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>
Subject: Re: [RESEND] [PATCH] VFS: make file->f_pos access atomic on 32bit arch
Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2008 03:27:44 +1100
Message-ID: <200810080327.44530.nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>
References: <6.0.0.20.2.20081007140438.0580f110@172.19.0.2> <6.0.0.20.2.20081007183452.0f052210@172.19.0.2> <20081007102942.GE20740@one.firstfloor.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Hisashi Hifumi <hifumi.hisashi@oss.ntt.co.jp>,
	akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
To: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>
Return-path: <linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from smtp114.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([209.191.84.67]:23615 "HELO
	smtp114.mail.mud.yahoo.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK)
	by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1752882AbYJGQ14 (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 7 Oct 2008 12:27:56 -0400
In-Reply-To: <20081007102942.GE20740@one.firstfloor.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org>

On Tuesday 07 October 2008 21:29, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > Maybe cmpxchg8b is good for i486 or later x86, but i386 or other
> > architectures that do not have similar instruction needs some locking
> > primitive. I think lazy
>
> We have a cmpxchg emulation on 386. That works because only UP 386s are
> supported, so it can be done in software.
>
> > seqlock is one option for making file->f_pos access atomic.
>
> The question is if it's the right option. At least all the common
> operations on fds (read/write) are all writers, not readers.

Common operations are read, do something, write. So seqlocks then cost
one atomic operation, a couple of memory barriers (all noops on x86),
and some predictable branches etc.

cmpxchg based would require 2 lock ; cmpxchg8b on 32-bit. Fairly heavy.
Also I don't think we have generic accessors to do this, so I think
that is for another project.

Anyway, I think importantly this creates some usable accessors for the
f_pos problem. I think we actually need to touch a _lot_ of code to
cover all f_pos accesses in the kernel, but I guess this gets the ball
rolling.

So.. is everyone agreed that corrupting f_pos is a bad thing? (serious
question) If so, then we should get something like this merged sooner
rather than later.