From: Louis Rilling <Louis.Rilling@kerlabs.com>
To: Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@redhat.com>
Cc: Joel Becker <Joel.Becker@oracle.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, cluster-devel@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] configfs: Silence lockdep on mkdir(), rmdir() and configfs_depend_item()
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 12:48:51 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20081218114851.GT19128@hawkmoon.kerlabs.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1229599618.3538.21.camel@localhost.localdomain>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2004 bytes --]
On 18/12/08 11:26 +0000, Steven Whitehouse wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-12-18 at 01:27 -0800, Joel Becker wrote:
> >
> > It's about the default_groups and how they build up and tear
> > down small bits of tree.
> > A simple creation of a config_item, a mkdir(2), is a normal VFS
> > lock set and doesn't make lockdep unhappy. But if the new config_item
> > has a default_group or two, they need locking too. Not so much on
> > mkdir(2), but on rmdir(2).
> >
> So if I've understood this correctly, the dentries created upon mkdir
> live until such time as they are removed at some later date, presumably
> with rmdir?
>
> When creating the tree, would it be possible to build it starting from
> the bottom and working towards the point of attachment and then to not
> actually attach it until the last moment? That way it would not be
> visible from userland until it was linked into the existing dir and that
> solves the locking issue for mkdir I think.
>
> As you say, rmdir seems the harder problem, but again, is it possible to
> separate the unlink operation from the destruction of the tree by
> keeping the tree, after its been unlinked, until the last userland
> reference has gone away? At least I assume that is why the locking is
> there. I may be a bit off the mark, but it seems like this is quite
> similar to how the VFS does umount, so maybe there are some hints in
> that code which may help us solve this issue?
I second this kind of rework and even think that it is doable. This would avoid
exposing things to userspace before they are created for sure. I even had to
include dirty hacks in configfs to avoid exposing too much of such temporary
things, and I'm definitely not proud of this.
Unfortunately I don't have time to rework configfs this way at all.
Louis
--
Dr Louis Rilling Kerlabs
Skype: louis.rilling Batiment Germanium
Phone: (+33|0) 6 80 89 08 23 80 avenue des Buttes de Coesmes
http://www.kerlabs.com/ 35700 Rennes
[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-12-18 11:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 34+ 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
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 [this message]
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
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=20081218114851.GT19128@hawkmoon.kerlabs.com \
--to=louis.rilling@kerlabs.com \
--cc=Joel.Becker@oracle.com \
--cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=cluster-devel@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.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
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®