From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Paul McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@bmw-carit.de>,
Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH RFC 0/4] change sb_writers to use percpu_rw_semaphore
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2015 23:25:36 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150713212536.GA13855@redhat.com> (raw)
Hello,
Al, Jan, could you comment? I mean the intent, the patches are
obviously not for inclusion yet.
We can remove everything from struct sb_writers except frozen
(which can become a boolean, it seems) and add the array of
percpu_rw_semaphore's instead.
__sb_start/end_write() can use percpu_down/up_read(), and
freeze/thaw_super() can use percpu_down/up_write().
Why:
- Firstly, __sb_start_write() looks simply buggy. I does
__sb_end_write() if it sees ->frozen, but if it migrates
to another CPU before percpu_counter_dec() sb_wait_write()
can wrongly succeed if there is another task which holds
the same "semaphore": sb_wait_write() can miss the result
of the previous percpu_counter_inc() but see the result
of this percpu_counter_dec().
- This code doesn't look simple. It would be better to rely
on the generic locking code.
- __sb_start_write() will be a little bit faster, but this
is minor.
Todo:
- __sb_start_write(wait => false) always fail.
Thivial, we already have percpu_down_read_trylock() just
this patch wasn't merged yet.
- sb_lockdep_release() and sb_lockdep_acquire() play with
percpu_rw_semaphore's internals.
Trivial, we need a couple of new helper in percpu-rwsem.c.
- Fix get_super_thawed(), it will spin if MS_RDONLY...
It is not clear to me what exactly should we do, but this
doesn't look hard. Perhaps it can just return if MS_RDONLY.
- Most probably I missed something else, and I do not need
how to test.
Finally. freeze_super() calls synchronize_sched_expedited() 3 times in
a row. This is bad and just stupid. But if we change percpu_rw_semaphore
to use rcu_sync (see https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/7/11/211) we can avoid
this and do synchronize_sched() only once. Just we need some more simple
changes in percpu-rwsem.c, so that all sb_writers->rw_sem[] semaphores
could use the single sb_writers->rss.
In this case destroy_super() needs some modifications too,
percpu_free_rwsem() will be might_sleep(). But this looks simple too.
Oleg.
fs/super.c | 147 +++++++++++++++++++--------------------------------
include/linux/fs.h | 14 +----
2 files changed, 58 insertions(+), 103 deletions(-)
next reply other threads:[~2015-07-13 21:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-07-13 21:25 Oleg Nesterov [this message]
2015-07-13 21:25 ` [PATCH 1/4] change get_super_thawed() to use sb_start/end_write() Oleg Nesterov
2015-07-14 10:49 ` Jan Kara
2015-07-14 13:38 ` Oleg Nesterov
2015-07-13 21:25 ` [PATCH 2/4] introduce sb_unlock_frozen() Oleg Nesterov
2015-07-13 21:25 ` [PATCH 3/4] introduce sb_lockdep_release() Oleg Nesterov
2015-07-13 21:25 ` [PATCH 4/4] change sb_writers to use percpu_rw_semaphore Oleg Nesterov
2015-07-13 22:23 ` [PATCH RFC 0/4] " Dave Chinner
2015-07-13 22:42 ` Oleg Nesterov
2015-07-13 23:14 ` Dave Chinner
2015-07-14 10:48 ` Jan Kara
2015-07-14 13:37 ` Oleg Nesterov
2015-07-14 21:17 ` Dave Hansen
2015-07-14 21:22 ` Oleg Nesterov
2015-07-14 21:41 ` Dave Hansen
2015-07-15 6:47 ` Jan Kara
2015-07-15 18:19 ` Oleg Nesterov
2015-07-16 7:26 ` Jan Kara
2015-07-16 7:30 ` Dave Hansen
2015-07-16 8:55 ` Jan Kara
2015-07-16 17:32 ` Oleg Nesterov
2015-07-17 1:27 ` Dave Chinner
2015-07-17 17:31 ` Oleg Nesterov
2015-07-17 22:40 ` Dave Chinner
2015-07-20 8:26 ` Jan Kara
2015-07-22 21:09 ` Oleg Nesterov
2015-07-20 16:23 ` Oleg Nesterov
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=20150713212536.GA13855@redhat.com \
--to=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=daniel.wagner@bmw-carit.de \
--cc=dave@stgolabs.net \
--cc=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
/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
Powered by JetHome