Re: [PATCH v7 1/4] spinlock: A new lockref structure for locklessupdate of refcount

[Al Viro]

On Sun, Sep 08, 2013 at 05:25:40PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 8, 2013 at 5:03 PM, Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Well...  unlazy_walk() is always followed by terminate_walk() very shortly,
> > but there's a minor problem - terminate_walk() uses "are we in RCU
> > mode?" for two things:
> >         a) do we need to do path_put() here?
> >         b) do we need to unlock?
> > If you introduce the third case ("no need to do unlock and no need to
> > do path_put()"), we'd better decide how to check for that case...
> 
> Actually, I decided to take advantage of those two cases instead, and
> I have a patch that I think does the right thing. Basically, I start
> off unlazy_walk() with just doing that lockref_get_not_dead() on the
> parent dentry, and if that fails I just return an error in RCU mode
> (so terminate_walk() does what it always used to do, and we haven't
> done anything else to any refcounts).
> 
> Now, if the lockref_get_not_dead() succeeded, that means that we have
> a reference on the nd->path.dentry, and we can now just do
> "mntget(nd->path.mnt);". Ta-Daa! We now have everything done for the
> non-RCU case for terminate_walk().
> 
> So after that point, we clear LOOKUP_RCU, and make the rule be that
> any return (error or success) has to do unlock_rcu_walk(). And then
> all the other refcounts are easy, we can just "dput(dentry);" after
> that.
> 
> I haven't tested it yet, I was going to reboot into it just now. But
> I'm attaching the patch here. Maybe I missed some detail, but it all
> seems simpler.
> 
> Note that this patch requires the "lockref_get_not_dead()" cleanup at
> the top of my current -git.

That should also work, replacing the current tip of #for-next.  Do you
prefer to merge those two diffs of yours into a single commit?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/