Re: [PATCH net-next 1/1] Separate locks for rmbs/sndbufs linked lists of different lengths

[Li Qiang <liqiang64@huawei.com>]

在 2024/11/19 4:48, Kuniyuki Iwashima 写道:
> From: liqiang <liqiang64@huawei.com>
> Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2024 21:21:47 +0800
>> @@ -596,10 +632,26 @@ static struct smc_buf_desc *smc_llc_get_next_rmb(struct smc_link_group *lgr,
>>  static struct smc_buf_desc *smc_llc_get_first_rmb(struct smc_link_group *lgr,
>>  						  int *buf_lst)
>>  {
>> -	*buf_lst = 0;
>> +	smc_llc_lock_in_turn(lgr->rmbs_lock, buf_lst, SMC_LLC_INTURN_LOCK_INIT);
>>  	return smc_llc_get_next_rmb(lgr, buf_lst, NULL);
>>  }
>>  
>> +static inline void smc_llc_bufs_wrlock_all(struct rw_semaphore *lock, int nums)
>> +{
>> +	int i = 0;
>> +
>> +	for (; i < nums; i++)
>> +		down_write(&lock[i]);
> 
> LOCKDEP will complain here.  You may want to test with
> CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING=y

Thanks for your reply, other implementations should be considered here.

> 
> 
>> +}
>> +
>> +static inline void smc_llc_bufs_wrunlock_all(struct rw_semaphore *lock, int nums)
>> +{
>> +	int i = 0;
>> +
>> +	for (; i < nums; i++)
>> +		up_write(&lock[i]);
>> +}
>> +
>>  static int smc_llc_fill_ext_v2(struct smc_llc_msg_add_link_v2_ext *ext,
>>  			       struct smc_link *link, struct smc_link *link_new)
>>  {
> 

-- 
Cheers,
Li Qiang