Re: [PATCH RFC 0/4] change sb_writers to use percpu_rw_semaphore

[Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>]

On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 12:42:37AM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 07/14, Dave Chinner wrote:
> >
> > [ Please cc linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org on filesystem
> > infrastructure changes! ]
> 
> OK, will do.
> 
> > On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 11:25:36PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > >
> > > 	- sb_lockdep_release() and sb_lockdep_acquire() play with
> > > 	  percpu_rw_semaphore's internals.
> > >
> > > 	  Trivial, we need a couple of new helper in percpu-rwsem.c.
> >
> > 	- try compiling XFS, watch it break on freeze lockdep
> > 	  annotations
> 
> Thanks a lot! I see. Still trivial, xfs can use the same helpers
> rather the abuse lockdep directly.
> 
> > > 	- Most probably I missed something else, and I do not need
> > > 	  how to test.
> >
> > xfstests has many freeze related stress tests.  IIRC, generic/068 is
> > the test that historically causes the most problems for freeze
> > infrastructure changes. You'll also need to test at least ext4, XFS
> > and btrfs, because they all stress the freeze code differently.
> > Testing XFS, in particular, is a good idea because it has several
> > custom freeze tests that aren't run on any other filesystem type.
> 
> Thanks again.
> 
> Do you see something fundamentally wrong with this change?

I haven't looked particularly closely at the implementation, just
enough to get an idea of the semantics of the new infrasructure (I
didn't know that per-cpu rwsems existed!). The freeze code is
essentially a multi-level read-optimised read/write barrier and
AFAICT the per-cpu rw-sem has those semantics. From that perspective
I don't see any fundamental problems, but there may be details that
I've missed....

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com