[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 06/11] xfs: replace i_flock with a sleeping bitlock

To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/11] xfs: replace i_flock with a sleeping bitlock
From: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 09:19:17 +1100
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20111208155918.493178782@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <20111208155755.323930705@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20111208155918.493178782@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
On Thu, Dec 08, 2011 at 10:58:01AM -0500, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> We almost never block on i_flock, the exception is synchronous inode
> flushing.  Instead of bloating the inode with a 16/24-byte completion
> that we abuse as a semaphore just implement it as a bitlock that uses
> a bit waitqueue for the rare sleeping path.  This primarily is a
> tradeoff between a much smaller inode and a faster non-blocking
> path vs faster wakeups, and we are much better off with the former.
> A small downside is that we will lose lockdep checking for i_flock, but
> given that it's always taken inside the ilock that should be acceptable.

I didn't think we had lockdep checking on the i_flock because it
uses completions rather than real lock primitives. Either way, I'm
not concerned about this aspect of the change - lockdep doesn't pick
up the typical sort of holdoff problems that i_flock vs delwri

> Note that for example the inode writeback locking is implemented in a
> very similar way.


> +
> +static inline void xfs_ifunlock(struct xfs_inode *ip)
> +{
> +     xfs_iflags_clear(ip, XFS_IFLOCK);
> +     wake_up_bit(&ip->i_flags, __XFS_IFLOCK_BIT);
> +}

Should the wakeup be done whilst the ip->i_flags_lock is still held?
The VFS code does the __I_SYNC wakeup while still holding the
inode->i_lock so that the clear and wakeup are atomic, similarly the
__I_NEW bit....



Dave Chinner

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