xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 1/6] Extend completions to provide XFS object flush requireme

To: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] Extend completions to provide XFS object flush requirements
From: Daniel Walker <dwalker@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 13:33:25 -0700
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, matthew@xxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <1214455277-6387-2-git-send-email-david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <1214455277-6387-1-git-send-email-david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1214455277-6387-2-git-send-email-david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Thu, 2008-06-26 at 14:41 +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> XFS object flushing doesn't quite match existing completion semantics.  It
> mixed exclusive access with completion. That is, we need to mark an object as
> being flushed before flushing it to disk, and then block any other attempt to
> flush it until the completion occurs.
> 
> To do this we introduce:
> 
> void init_completion_flush(struct completion *x)
>       which initialises x->done = 1
> 
> void completion_flush_start(struct completion *x)
>       which blocks if done == 0, otherwise decrements done to zero and
>       allows the caller to continue.
> 
> bool completion_flush_start_nowait(struct completion *x)
>       returns a failure status if done == 0, otherwise decrements done
>       to zero and returns a "flush started" status. This is provided
>       to allow flushing to begin safely while holding object locks in
>       inverted order.
> 
> This replaces the use of semaphores for providing this exclusion
> and completion mechanism.

I think there is some basis to make the changes that you have here.
Specifically this email and thread,

http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/4/15/232

However, I don't like how your implementing this as specifically a
"flush" mechanism for XFS, and the count is limited to just 1 .. There
are several other places that do this kind of counting with semaphores,
and have counts above 1..

> +
> +static inline void completion_flush_start(struct completion *x)
> +{
> +     wait_for_completion(x);
> +}

Above seems completely pointless.. I would just call
wait_for_completion(), and make the rest of the interface generic.

Daniel


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>