mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To: Imran Khan <imran.f.khan@oracle.com>
Cc: gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/2] kernfs: Replace per-fs global rwsem with per-fs hashed rwsem.
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2022 08:26:40 -1000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <YgK14ElTBW1BOXxW@slm.duckdns.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220206010925.1033990-3-imran.f.khan@oracle.com>

Hello,

On Sun, Feb 06, 2022 at 12:09:25PM +1100, Imran Khan wrote:
> Having a single rwsem to synchronize all operations across a kernfs
> based file system (cgroup, sysfs etc.) does not scale well. Replace
> it with a hashed rwsem to reduce contention around single per-fs
> rwsem.
> Also introduce a perfs rwsem to protect per-fs list of kernfs_super_info.

Can you split the two conversions into separate patches? Also, I'm not sure
about the per-fs hashtable as before.

>  static bool kernfs_active(struct kernfs_node *kn)
>  {
> -	lockdep_assert_held(&kernfs_root(kn)->kernfs_rwsem);
> +	int idx = hash_ptr(kn, NR_KERNFS_LOCK_BITS);
> +
> +	lockdep_assert_held(&kernfs_root(kn)->kernfs_rwsem[idx]);

Please encapsulate this into a function. If possible, it'd be ideal if the
conversion can be done in steps - e.g. first introduce lock encapsulation
interface while leaving locking itself alone and then switch the actual
locking.

> -static void kernfs_drain(struct kernfs_node *kn)
> -	__releases(&kernfs_root(kn)->kernfs_rwsem)
> -	__acquires(&kernfs_root(kn)->kernfs_rwsem)
> +static void kernfs_drain(struct kernfs_node *kn, struct kernfs_node *anc)
> +	__releases(&kernfs_root(anc)->kernfs_rwsem[a_idx])
> +	__acquires(&kernfs_root(anc)->kernfs_rwsem[a_idx])
>  {
>  	struct kernfs_root *root = kernfs_root(kn);
> +	int a_idx = hash_ptr(anc, NR_KERNFS_LOCK_BITS);
>  
> -	lockdep_assert_held_write(&root->kernfs_rwsem);
> -	WARN_ON_ONCE(kernfs_active(kn));
> +	lockdep_assert_held_write(&root->kernfs_rwsem[a_idx]);
> +	WARN_ON_ONCE(atomic_read(&kn->active) >= 0);

Ditto, I'd much prefer to see the lock lookup and accompanying operations to
be encapsulated somehow.

> @@ -1588,37 +1597,65 @@ int kernfs_rename_ns(struct kernfs_node *kn, struct kernfs_node *new_parent,
>  		     const char *new_name, const void *new_ns)
>  {
>  	struct kernfs_node *old_parent;
> -	struct kernfs_root *root;
>  	const char *old_name = NULL;
> -	int error;
> +	int error, idx, np_idx, p_idx;
>  
>  	/* can't move or rename root */
>  	if (!kn->parent)
>  		return -EINVAL;
>  
> -	root = kernfs_root(kn);
> -	down_write(&root->kernfs_rwsem);
> +	/*
> +	 * Take lock of node's old (current) parent.
> +	 * If new parent has a different lock, then take that
> +	 * lock as well.
> +	 */
> +	idx = hash_ptr(kn, NR_KERNFS_LOCK_BITS);
> +	p_idx = hash_ptr(kn->parent, NR_KERNFS_LOCK_BITS);
> +	np_idx = hash_ptr(new_parent, NR_KERNFS_LOCK_BITS);
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * Take only kn's lock. The subsequent kernfs_put
> +	 * may free up old_parent so if old_parent has a
> +	 * different lock, we will explicitly release that.
> +	 */
> +	down_write_kernfs_rwsem(kn, LOCK_SELF, 0);
> +
> +	if (idx != np_idx) /* new parent hashes to different lock */
> +		down_write_kernfs_rwsem(new_parent, LOCK_SELF, 1);
> +
> +	/* old_parent hashes to a different lock */
> +	if (idx != p_idx && p_idx != np_idx)
> +		down_write_kernfs_rwsem(kn->parent, LOCK_SELF, 2);

Can't this lead to ABBA deadlock? When double locking, the locking order
should always be consistent. If we were doing per-kernfs_node lock, child ->
parent ordering works but we're hashing locks, so that doesn't work anymore
- one child-parent combo can lock A then B while the other child-parent
combo hash the other way around and lock B then A. The only order we can
define is in terms of the locks themselves - e.g. if the address (or index)
of lock A < lock B, then we lock A first whether that maps to the child or
parent.

Also, please encapsulate double locking in a set of functions. We really
don't wanna see all the details in the users.

> --- a/fs/kernfs/kernfs-internal.h
> +++ b/fs/kernfs/kernfs-internal.h
> @@ -19,6 +19,9 @@
>  #include <linux/kernfs.h>
>  #include <linux/fs_context.h>
>  
> +#define LOCK_SELF 0
> +#define LOCK_SELF_AND_PARENT 1

I get that this is private header but can you please add some identifying
prefix and make them enums? That makes it way easier for debuggers, bpf and
tracing.

> +/*
> + * If both node and it's parent need locking,
> + * lock child first so that kernfs_rename_ns
> + * does not change the parent, leaving us
> + * with old parent here.
> + */

Please reflow it close to 80 chars and ditto with above. We can't follow
child -> parent order with hashed locks.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun

  reply	other threads:[~2022-02-08 18:26 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-02-06  1:09 [PATCH v5 0/2] kernfs: use hashed mutex and spinlock in place of global ones Imran Khan
2022-02-06  1:09 ` [PATCH v5 1/2] " Imran Khan
2022-02-08 11:27   ` Greg KH
2022-02-14 12:13     ` Imran Khan
2022-02-08 17:22   ` Tejun Heo
2022-02-14 12:19     ` Imran Khan
2022-02-14 17:39       ` Tejun Heo
2022-02-06  1:09 ` [PATCH v5 2/2] kernfs: Replace per-fs global rwsem with per-fs hashed rwsem Imran Khan
2022-02-08 18:26   ` Tejun Heo [this message]
2022-02-14 12:27     ` Imran Khan

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=YgK14ElTBW1BOXxW@slm.duckdns.org \
    --to=tj@kernel.org \
    --cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=imran.f.khan@oracle.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    /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®