Anton Altaparmakov wrote:
>
> The code would be run outside the critical region... But correct about
> the race. I thought that was obvious and wasn't suggesting the above to be
> the actual code... That was supposed to be obvious from lack of error
> handling etc... Never mind. My mistake, I should have been more precise
> the first time round, here is the actual code I had in mind:
>
> [snip]
> if (unlikely(!ntfs_compression_buffers)) {
> int err;
>
> /*
> * This code path only ever triggers once so we take it
> * out of line.
> */
> if ((err = try_to_allocate_compression_buffers())) {
> // TODO: do appropriate cleanups
> return err;
> }
> }
> disable_preempt();
> cb = ntfs_compression_buffers[smp_processor_id()];
> [snip]
>
> and try_to_allocate_compression_buffers would be:
>
> int try_to_allocate_compression_buffers(void)
> {
> int err = 0;
>
> down(&ntfs_lock);
> if (likely(!ntfs_compression_buffers))
> err = allocate_compression_buffers();
> up(&ntfs_lock);
> return err;
> }
>
> and allocate_compression_buffers() is the same as it is now. Actually I
> was going to fuse try_to_allocate and allocate into one function but as I
> am showing above it is clearer to see what I had in mind...
>
> Happy now? This basically just defers the allocation to a bit later. As it
> is at the moment the allocation happens at mount time of a partition which
> supports compression. Note that the code in super.c would still need to
> exist due to reference counting so we know when we can free the buffers
> again. The only thing changed in super.c will be to remove the actual call
> to allocate_compression_buffers, all else stays in place. Otherwise we
> have no way to tell when we can throw away the buffers.
>
I presume allocate_compression_buffers() allocates *all* buffers, and
doesn't return error if there is nothing to allocate? If so, the above
code should be OK.
If allocate_compression_buffers() either doesn't check if it has already
allocated, or returns an error if buffers were already allocated, then
the above code is OK *EXCEPT IN THE CASE OF HOTSWAP CPUs*.
My originally proposed code allocated one buffer at a time, and should
be correct even in the presence of hotswap CPUs.
-hpa
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jun 15 2002 - 22:00:27 EST