Re: [PATCH] f2fs: move f2fs to use reader-unfair rwsems

[Waiman Long]

On 1/10/22 13:45, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 10, 2022 at 11:18:27AM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
> > On 1/10/22 03:05, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > Adding the locking primitive maintainers to this patch adding open coded
> > > locking primitives..
> > >
> > > On Sat, Jan 08, 2022 at 08:46:17AM -0800, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> > > > From: Tim Murray <timmurray@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > >
> > > > f2fs rw_semaphores work better if writers can starve readers,
> > > > especially for the checkpoint thread, because writers are strictly
> > > > more important than reader threads. This prevents significant priority
> > > > inversion between low-priority readers that blocked while trying to
> > > > acquire the read lock and a second acquisition of the write lock that
> > > > might be blocking high priority work.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Tim Murray <timmurray@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > We could certainly implement a down_read() variant (e.g.
> > down_read_lowprio()) with its own slowpath function to do this within the
> > rwsem code as long as there is a good use-case for this kind of
> > functionality.
> I think _unfair() or something along those lines is a *much* better
> naming that _lowprio(). Consider a RT task ending up calling _lowprio().
> That just doesn't make conceptual sense.
I am fine with the _unfair() name as I am not good at naming:-)
> And then there's the lockdep angle; the thing being unfair will lead to
> scenarios where lockdep will give a false positive because it expects
> the r-w-r order to block things, which won't happen. A position needs to
> be taken a-prioriy.

Right, we may need to twist lockdep to match the new behavior if we are 
going to provide such a functionality.

Cheers,
Longman