Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/3] configfs: Make nested default groups lockdep-friendly
From: Louis Rilling
Date: Wed May 21 2008 - 08:54:48 EST
Peter Zijlstra a écrit :
> On Wed, 2008-05-21 at 12:25 +0200, Louis Rilling wrote:
>> Thanks for pointing this out.
>> Yes this could solve part of the issue, at the price of duplicating the
>> inode mutex class. However, this still does not solve the issue when
>> deleting config_groups, since in that case all nodes of the tree are
>> locked. Thinking about adding lockdep support for concurrent locking of
>> the direct children of a node in a tree...
> Why doesn't sysfs have this problem? - the code says configfs was
> derived from sysfs.
Perhaps because sysfs is driven from the kernel, where behaviors can be
controlled, while in configfs only userspace creates/removes directories.
> Also, do you really need to hold all locks when removing something?
> sound like a bit overdone. Also realise there is a maximum number of
> held locks - various people have already requested it to be increased or
> made dynamic. We're reluctant in doing so because we feel lock chains
> should not be of unlimited length. The deeper the chains the bigger the
> PI overhead etc..
I did not write configfs, so I can only observe that a whole inode tree
is locked when removing a directory hierarchy. I suspect that this is
intended to provide userspace and client sub-systems with some atomic
> As to modifying lockdep - it currently doesn't know about trees and
> teaching it about them isn't easy.
That was my guess.
Dr Louis Rilling Kerlabs
Skype: louis.rilling Batiment Germanium
Phone: (+33|0) 6 80 89 08 23 80 avenue des Buttes de Coesmes
http://www.kerlabs.com/ 35700 Rennes
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/