From: Brian Foster <bfoster@redhat.com>
To: Pavel Reichl <preichl@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 4/4] xfs: replace mrlock_t with rw_semaphores
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2020 07:07:10 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20201013110710.GC966478@bfoster> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <a6afba10-64a2-a30c-94de-e99a324a6114@redhat.com>
On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 11:02:51PM +0200, Pavel Reichl wrote:
>
> > ...
> >> @@ -384,16 +385,17 @@ xfs_isilocked(
> >> struct xfs_inode *ip,
> >> uint lock_flags)
> >> {
> >> - if (lock_flags & (XFS_ILOCK_EXCL|XFS_ILOCK_SHARED)) {
> >> - if (!(lock_flags & XFS_ILOCK_SHARED))
> >> - return !!ip->i_lock.mr_writer;
> >> - return rwsem_is_locked(&ip->i_lock.mr_lock);
> >> + if (lock_flags & (XFS_ILOCK_EXCL | XFS_ILOCK_SHARED)) {
> >> + ASSERT(!(lock_flags & ~(XFS_ILOCK_EXCL | XFS_ILOCK_SHARED)));
> >> + return __xfs_rwsem_islocked(&ip->i_lock,
> >> + (lock_flags >> XFS_ILOCK_FLAG_SHIFT));
> >> }
> >>
> >> - if (lock_flags & (XFS_MMAPLOCK_EXCL|XFS_MMAPLOCK_SHARED)) {
> >> - if (!(lock_flags & XFS_MMAPLOCK_SHARED))
> >> - return !!ip->i_mmaplock.mr_writer;
> >> - return rwsem_is_locked(&ip->i_mmaplock.mr_lock);
> >> + if (lock_flags & (XFS_MMAPLOCK_EXCL | XFS_MMAPLOCK_SHARED)) {
> >> + ASSERT(!(lock_flags &
> >> + ~(XFS_MMAPLOCK_EXCL | XFS_MMAPLOCK_SHARED)));
> >> + return __xfs_rwsem_islocked(&ip->i_mmaplock,
> >> + (lock_flags >> XFS_MMAPLOCK_FLAG_SHIFT));
> >> }
> >>
> >> if (lock_flags & (XFS_IOLOCK_EXCL | XFS_IOLOCK_SHARED)) {
> >
> > Can we add a similar assert for this case as we have for the others?
> > Otherwise the rest looks fairly straightforward to me.
> >
>
> Sure we can! But do we want to?
>
> I think that these asserts are supposed to make sure that only flags for one of the inode's locks are used eg. ILOCK, MMAPLOCK or IOLOCK but no combination! So if we reach this 3rd condition we already know that the flags for ILOCK and MMAPLOCK were not set. However if there's possibility for more locks to be added in the future or just for the 'code symmetry' purposes - I have no problem to update the code.
>
>
Fair point. I do tend to agree with Darrick that I'd rather not rely on
even mildly tricky/subtle logic to optimize away things like asserts
(that are already optimized away on production kernels). Somebody could
come along, refactor this function and very easily gloss over the fact
that particular checks are missing. That said, I suppose it's
technically dead code with the current logic so it's not that big of a
deal IMO.
Brian
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-10-13 11:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-10-09 19:55 [PATCH v11 0/4] xfs: Remove wrappers for some semaphores Pavel Reichl
2020-10-09 19:55 ` [PATCH v11 1/4] xfs: Refactor xfs_isilocked() Pavel Reichl
2020-10-12 16:03 ` Brian Foster
2020-10-12 21:28 ` Darrick J. Wong
2020-10-13 11:04 ` Brian Foster
2020-10-14 21:04 ` Pavel Reichl
2020-10-15 10:32 ` Brian Foster
2020-10-15 8:20 ` Christoph Hellwig
2020-10-09 19:55 ` [PATCH v11 2/4] xfs: clean up whitespace in xfs_isilocked() calls Pavel Reichl
2020-10-12 16:03 ` Brian Foster
2020-10-15 8:17 ` Christoph Hellwig
2020-10-09 19:55 ` [PATCH v11 3/4] xfs: xfs_isilocked() can only check a single lock type Pavel Reichl
2020-10-12 16:03 ` Brian Foster
2020-10-15 8:17 ` Christoph Hellwig
2020-10-09 19:55 ` [PATCH v11 4/4] xfs: replace mrlock_t with rw_semaphores Pavel Reichl
2020-10-12 16:04 ` Brian Foster
2020-10-12 20:44 ` Pavel Reichl
2020-10-13 11:04 ` Brian Foster
2020-10-13 13:39 ` Pavel Reichl
2020-10-13 13:49 ` Brian Foster
2020-10-12 21:02 ` Pavel Reichl
2020-10-12 21:30 ` Darrick J. Wong
2020-10-13 11:07 ` Brian Foster [this message]
2020-10-15 8:21 ` Christoph Hellwig
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=20201013110710.GC966478@bfoster \
--to=bfoster@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=preichl@redhat.com \
/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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).