linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
To: Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@gmail.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org,
	peterz@infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [RFC] bcachefs: SIX locks (shared/intent/exclusive)
Date: Mon, 21 May 2018 20:04:16 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180522030416.GB18682@bombadil.infradead.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180522021951.1453-1-kent.overstreet@gmail.com>

On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 10:19:51PM -0400, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> New lock for bcachefs, like read/write locks but with a third state,
> intent.
> 
> Intent locks conflict with each other, but not with read locks; taking a
> write lock requires first holding an intent lock.

Can you put something in the description that these are sleeping locks
(like mutexes), not spinning locks (like spinlocks)?  (Yeah, I know
there's the opportunistic spin, but conceptually, they're sleeping locks).

Some other things I'd like documented:

 - Any number of readers can hold the lock
 - Once one thread acquires the lock for intent, further intent acquisitions
   will block.  May new readers acquire the lock?
 - You cannot acquire the lock for write directly, you must acquire it for
   intent first, then upgrade to write.
 - Can you downgrade to read from intent, or downgrade from write back to
   intent?
 - Once you are trying to upgrade from intent to write, are new read
   acquisitions blocked? (can readers starve writers?)
 - When you drop the lock as a writer, do we prefer reader acquisitions
   over intent acquisitions?  That is, if we have a queue of RRIRIRIR,
   and we drop the lock, does the queue look like II or IRIR?

  reply	other threads:[~2018-05-22  3:04 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-05-22  2:19 Kent Overstreet
2018-05-22  3:04 ` Matthew Wilcox [this message]
2018-05-22  3:49   ` Kent Overstreet

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=20180522030416.GB18682@bombadil.infradead.org \
    --to=willy@infradead.org \
    --cc=kent.overstreet@gmail.com \
    --cc=linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --subject='Re: [PATCH] [RFC] bcachefs: SIX locks (shared/intent/exclusive)' \
    /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

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).