From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
To: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
Cc: "Michael L. Semon" <mlsemon35@gmail.com>, xfs-oss <xfs@oss.sgi.com>
Subject: Re: Multi-CPU harmless lockdep on x86 while copying data
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 03:37:16 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140310103716.GA1431@infradead.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140310025523.GV6851@dastard>
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 01:55:23PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> Changing the directory code to handle this sort of locking is going
> to require a bit of surgery. However, I can see advantages to moving
> directory data to the same locking strategy as regular file data -
> locking heirarchies are identical, directory ilock hold times are
> much reduced, we don't get lockdep whining about taking page faults
> with the ilock held, etc.
>
> A quick hack at to demonstrate the high level, initial step of using
> the IOLOCK for readdir serialisation. I've done a little smoke
> testing on it, so it won't die immediately. It should get rid of all
> the nasty lockdep issues, but it doesn't start to address the deeper
> restructing that is needed.
What synchronization do we actually need from the iolock? Pushing the
ilock down to where it's actually needed is a good idea either way,
though.
> This would be a straight forward change, except for two things:
> filestreams and lockdep. The filestream allocator takes the
> directory iolock and makes assumptions about parent->child locking
> order of the iolock which will now be invalidated. Hence some
> changes to the filestreams code is needed to ensure that it never
> blocks on directory iolocks and deadlocks. instead it needs to fail
> stream associations when such problems occur.
I think the right fix is to stop abusing the iolock in filestreams.
To me it seems like a look inside fstrm_item_t should be fine
for what the filestreams code wants if I understand it correctly.
>From looking over some of the filestreams code just for a few minutes
I get an urge to redo lots of it right now..
> @@ -1228,7 +1244,7 @@ xfs_create(
> * the transaction cancel unlocking dp so don't do it explicitly in the
> * error path.
> */
> - xfs_trans_ijoin(tp, dp, XFS_ILOCK_EXCL);
> + xfs_trans_ijoin(tp, dp, XFS_IOLOCK_EXCL | XFS_ILOCK_EXCL);
What do we need the iolock on these operations for?
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-03-10 10:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-03-09 2:58 Multi-CPU harmless lockdep on x86 while copying data Michael L. Semon
2014-03-10 2:55 ` Dave Chinner
2014-03-10 10:37 ` Christoph Hellwig [this message]
2014-03-10 11:12 ` Christoph Hellwig
2014-03-10 20:51 ` Dave Chinner
2014-03-11 16:48 ` Christoph Hellwig
2014-03-10 20:46 ` Dave Chinner
2014-03-10 21:16 ` Ben Myers
2014-03-10 21:24 ` Dave Chinner
2014-03-10 22:10 ` Ben Myers
2014-03-10 20:52 ` Ben Myers
2014-03-10 21:20 ` Dave Chinner
2014-03-10 21:30 ` Ben Myers
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=20140310103716.GA1431@infradead.org \
--to=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=mlsemon35@gmail.com \
--cc=xfs@oss.sgi.com \
/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).