mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jia Zhu <zhujia.zj@bytedance.com>
To: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-cachefs@redhat.com, linux-erofs@lists.ozlabs.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Xin Yin <yinxin.x@bytedance.com>,
	Jingbo Xu <jefflexu@linux.alibaba.com>,
	zhujia.zj@bytedance.com
Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH V4 3/5] cachefiles: resend an open request if the read request's object is closed
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2023 19:42:47 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <029453d7-1b2d-3d3c-cd8e-64f5be4420bf@bytedance.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <132777.1680012744@warthog.procyon.org.uk>



在 2023/3/28 22:12, David Howells 写道:
> Jia Zhu <zhujia.zj@bytedance.com> wrote:
> 
>> +	struct cachefiles_object *object =
>> +		((struct cachefiles_ondemand_info *)work)->object;
> 
> container_of().
Thanks, will revise it.
> 
>> +			continue;
>> +		} else if (cachefiles_ondemand_object_is_reopening(object)) {
> 
> The "else" is unnecessary.
Will remove it.
> 
>> +static void ondemand_object_worker(struct work_struct *work)
>> +{
>> +	struct cachefiles_object *object =
>> +		((struct cachefiles_ondemand_info *)work)->object;
>> +
>> +	cachefiles_ondemand_init_object(object);
>> +}
> 
> I can't help but feel there's some missing exclusion/locking.  

It's indeed kind of complicated here since the async operation.
Thus we paid much attention to catching the race scenarios during coding
and reviewing.

Here are several corner case have been considered:

1. Don't repeatedly push the @work of same object into workqueue:
Use <reopening> state to represent this object. Once the object is
set to <reopening> atomicly, which means the work has been pushed to
workqueue. And other concurrent threads will not pick the <reopening>
object to workqueue.

2. Don't repeatedly set <reopening> state for the same object:
Hold the xa_lock during searching reqs and setting it to <reopening>.
Once object is set to <reopening>, the same object will be skipped.

3. etc.

Would you mind providing more hints for this issue?

> This feels like
> it really ought to be driven from the fscache object state machine.

It's a great idea. But the problem is if we add a new state to indicate
this reopening status and use fscache state machine to drive the cookie
to do reopen(), thus reopen() (in fscache module) ought to invoke
cachefiles_ondemand_init_object() (in cachefile module) to require user
daemon to open the backend file.
But it seems that fscache module should not depend on cachefiles module.
> 

  reply	other threads:[~2023-03-29 11:43 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2023-01-11  5:25 [PATCH V4 0/5] Introduce daemon failover mechanism to recover from crashing Jia Zhu
2023-01-11  5:25 ` [PATCH V4 1/5] cachefiles: introduce object ondemand state Jia Zhu
2023-01-11  5:25 ` [PATCH V4 2/5] cachefiles: extract ondemand info field from cachefiles_object Jia Zhu
2023-01-11  5:25 ` [PATCH V4 3/5] cachefiles: resend an open request if the read request's object is closed Jia Zhu
2023-01-11  5:25 ` [PATCH V4 4/5] cachefiles: narrow the scope of triggering EPOLLIN events in ondemand mode Jia Zhu
2023-01-11  5:25 ` [PATCH V4 5/5] cachefiles: add restore command to recover inflight ondemand read requests Jia Zhu
2023-03-28 13:52 ` [PATCH V4 1/5] cachefiles: introduce object ondemand state David Howells
2023-03-29  3:33   ` Jia Zhu
2023-03-28 13:58 ` [PATCH V4 2/5] cachefiles: extract ondemand info field from cachefiles_object David Howells
2023-03-29  5:06   ` Jia Zhu
2023-03-28 14:12 ` [PATCH V4 3/5] cachefiles: resend an open request if the read request's object is closed David Howells
2023-03-29 11:42   ` Jia Zhu [this message]
2023-03-28 14:19 ` [PATCH V4 4/5] cachefiles: narrow the scope of triggering EPOLLIN events in ondemand mode David Howells
2023-03-29  8:08   ` [External] " Jia Zhu

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=029453d7-1b2d-3d3c-cd8e-64f5be4420bf@bytedance.com \
    --to=zhujia.zj@bytedance.com \
    --cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
    --cc=jefflexu@linux.alibaba.com \
    --cc=linux-cachefs@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-erofs@lists.ozlabs.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=yinxin.x@bytedance.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

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®