Re: [RFC] pdirops: vfs patch

[Jan Blunck]

Alex Tomas wrote:
> +static inline struct semaphore * lock_sem(struct inode *dir, struct qstr *name)
> +{
> +	if (IS_PDIROPS(dir)) {
> +		struct super_block *sb;
> +		/* name->hash expected to be already calculated */
> +		sb = dir->i_sb;
> +		BUG_ON(sb->s_pdirops_sems == NULL);
> +		return sb->s_pdirops_sems + name->hash % sb->s_pdirops_size;
> +	}
> +	return &dir->i_sem;
> +}
> +
> +static inline void lock_dir(struct inode *dir, struct qstr *name)
> +{
> +	down(lock_sem(dir, name));
> +}
> +

> @@ -1182,12 +1204,26 @@
>  /*
>   * p1 and p2 should be directories on the same fs.
>   */
> -struct dentry *lock_rename(struct dentry *p1, struct dentry *p2)
> +struct dentry *lock_rename(struct dentry *p1, struct qstr *n1,
> +				struct dentry *p2, struct qstr *n2)
>  {
>  	struct dentry *p;
>  
>  	if (p1 == p2) {
> -		down(&p1->d_inode->i_sem);
> +		if (IS_PDIROPS(p1->d_inode)) {
> +			unsigned int h1, h2;
> +			h1 = n1->hash % p1->d_inode->i_sb->s_pdirops_size;
> +			h2 = n2->hash % p2->d_inode->i_sb->s_pdirops_size;
> +			if (h1 < h2) {
> +				lock_dir(p1->d_inode, n1);
> +				lock_dir(p2->d_inode, n2);
> +			} else if (h1 > h2) {
> +				lock_dir(p2->d_inode, n2);
> +				lock_dir(p1->d_inode, n1);
> +			} else
> +				lock_dir(p1->d_inode, n1);
> +		} else
> +			down(&p1->d_inode->i_sem);
>  		return NULL;
>  	}
>  
> @@ -1195,31 +1231,35 @@
>  
>  	for (p = p1; p->d_parent != p; p = p->d_parent) {
>  		if (p->d_parent == p2) {
> -			down(&p2->d_inode->i_sem);
> -			down(&p1->d_inode->i_sem);
> +			lock_dir(p2->d_inode, n2);
> +			lock_dir(p1->d_inode, n1);
>  			return p;
>  		}
>  	}
>  
>  	for (p = p2; p->d_parent != p; p = p->d_parent) {
>  		if (p->d_parent == p1) {
> -			down(&p1->d_inode->i_sem);
> -			down(&p2->d_inode->i_sem);
> +			lock_dir(p1->d_inode, n1);
> +			lock_dir(p2->d_inode, n2);
>  			return p;
>  		}
>  	}
>  
> -	down(&p1->d_inode->i_sem);
> -	down(&p2->d_inode->i_sem);
> +	lock_dir(p1->d_inode, n1);
> +	lock_dir(p2->d_inode, n2);
>  	return NULL;
>  }

With luck you have s_pdirops_size (or 1024) different renames altering 
concurrently one directory inode. Therefore you need a lock protecting 
your filesystem data. This is basically the job done by i_sem. So in my 
opinion you only move "The Problem" from the VFS to the lowlevel 
filesystems. But then there is no need for i_sem or your s_pdirops_sems 
anymore.

Regards,
Jan
-
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/