From: Joel Becker <Joel.Becker@oracle.com>
To: Louis Rilling <louis.rilling@kerlabs.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
cluster-devel@redhat.com, swhiteho@redhat.com,
peterz@infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] configfs: Rework configfs_depend_item() locking and make lockdep happy
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 20:13:53 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090128041353.GF7244@mail.oracle.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1229623218-8056-3-git-send-email-louis.rilling@kerlabs.com>
On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 07:00:18PM +0100, Louis Rilling wrote:
> configfs_depend_item() recursively locks all inodes mutex from configfs root to
> the target item, which makes lockdep unhappy. The purpose of this recursive
> locking is to ensure that the item tree can be safely parsed and that the target
> item, if found, is not about to leave.
>
> This patch reworks configfs_depend_item() locking using configfs_dirent_lock.
> Since configfs_dirent_lock protects all changes to the configfs_dirent tree, and
> protects tagging of items to be removed, this lock can be used instead of the
> inodes mutex lock chain.
> This needs that the check for dependents be done atomically with
> CONFIGFS_USET_DROPPING tagging.
>
> Now lockdep looks happy with configfs.
This looks almost, but not quite right.
In the create path, we do configfs_new_dirent() before we set
sd->s_type. But configfs_new_dirent() attaches sd->s_sibling. So, in
aonther thread, configfs_depend_prep() can traverse this s_sibling
without CONFIGFS_USET_CREATING being set. This turns out to be safe
because CONFIGFS_DIR is also not set - but boy I'd like a comment about
that.
What if we're in mkdir(2) in one thread and another thread is
trying to pin the parent directory? That is, we are inside
configfs_mkdir(parent, new_dentry, mode). The other thread is doing
configfs_depend_item(subsys, parent). With this patch, the other thread
will not take parent->i_mutex. It will happily determine that
parent is part of the tree and bump its s_dependent with no locking. Is
this OK?
If it is - isn't this patch good without any other reason? That
is, aside from the issues of lockdep, isn't it better for
configfs_depend_item() to never have to worry about the VFS locks other
than the configfs root?
Joel
--
The zen have a saying:
"When you learn how to listen, ANYONE can be your teacher."
Joel Becker
Principal Software Developer
Oracle
E-mail: joel.becker@oracle.com
Phone: (650) 506-8127
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-01-28 4:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 40+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-12-11 14:20 configfs, dlm_controld & lockdep Steven Whitehouse
2008-12-11 14:44 ` Louis Rilling
2008-12-11 17:34 ` Joel Becker
2008-12-12 10:06 ` Louis Rilling
2008-12-12 15:29 ` [PATCH] configfs: Silence lockdep on mkdir(), rmdir() and configfs_depend_item() Louis Rilling
2008-12-17 21:40 ` Andrew Morton
2008-12-17 22:03 ` Joel Becker
2008-12-17 22:09 ` Andrew Morton
2008-12-18 7:26 ` Peter Zijlstra
2008-12-18 9:27 ` Joel Becker
2008-12-18 11:15 ` Louis Rilling
2008-12-18 18:00 ` Make lockdep happy with configfs Louis Rilling
2009-01-26 11:51 ` Louis Rilling
2009-01-28 3:44 ` Joel Becker
2008-12-18 18:00 ` [PATCH 1/2] configfs: Silence lockdep on mkdir() and rmdir() Louis Rilling
2009-01-28 3:55 ` Joel Becker
2009-01-28 10:38 ` Louis Rilling
2008-12-18 18:00 ` [PATCH 2/2] configfs: Rework configfs_depend_item() locking and make lockdep happy Louis Rilling
2009-01-28 4:13 ` Joel Becker [this message]
2009-01-28 10:32 ` Louis Rilling
2008-12-18 11:26 ` [PATCH] configfs: Silence lockdep on mkdir(), rmdir() and configfs_depend_item() Steven Whitehouse
2008-12-18 11:48 ` Louis Rilling
2008-12-18 11:56 ` Peter Zijlstra
2008-12-18 12:28 ` Peter Zijlstra
2008-12-18 22:58 ` Joel Becker
2008-12-19 10:29 ` Louis Rilling
2009-01-26 12:30 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-01-26 13:24 ` Louis Rilling
2009-01-26 13:41 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-01-26 14:00 ` Louis Rilling
2009-01-26 14:19 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-01-26 14:55 ` Louis Rilling
2009-01-28 3:05 ` Joel Becker
2009-01-28 3:41 ` Joel Becker
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2009-01-28 18:18 [PATCH v2] Make lockdep happy with configfs Louis Rilling
2009-01-28 18:18 ` [PATCH 2/2] configfs: Rework configfs_depend_item() locking and make lockdep happy Louis Rilling
2009-04-29 18:52 ` Joel Becker
2009-04-30 9:18 ` Louis Rilling
2009-04-30 17:20 ` Joel Becker
2009-04-30 17:30 ` Joel Becker
2009-05-04 10:20 ` Louis Rilling
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=20090128041353.GF7244@mail.oracle.com \
--to=joel.becker@oracle.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=cluster-devel@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=louis.rilling@kerlabs.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=swhiteho@redhat.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