Re: [PATCH 10/12] writeback: only allow one inflight and pending full flush

From: Jens Axboe
Date: Tue Oct 03 2017 - 12:11:29 EST

On 10/03/2017 10:06 AM, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 02:17:32AM +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On 09/28/2017 11:44 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>>> On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 2:41 PM, Andrew Morton
>>> <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> test_and_set_bit()?
>>> If there aren't any atomicity concerns (either because of higher-level
>>> locking, or because racing and having two people set the bit is fine),
>>> it can be better to do them separately if the test_bit() is the common
>>> case and you can avoid dirtying a cacheline that way.
>>> But yeah, if that is the case, it might be worth documenting, because
>>> test_and_set_bit() is the more obviously appropriate "there can be
>>> only one" model.
>> It is documented though, but maybe not well enough...
>> I've actually had to document/explain it enough times now, that it
>> might be worth making a general construct. Though it has to be
>> used carefully, so perhaps it's better contained as separate use
>> cases.
> test_and_test_and_set_bit()? It's an unusual name, so when either
> reading it or writing it, people are going to say "something unusual
> here", rather than "That Jens Axboe is such a n00b, he doesn't know how
> to use test_and_set_bit()". There are a few references out on the web
> to test-and-test-and-set already, so it's not entirely unique to Linux.
> Plus, some architectures might be able to optimise that, particularly
> those which are ll/sc based. It might be exactly the same as their
> test_and_set().

I like that suggestion, but would suggest we make it
test_then_test_and_set_bit() since the 'then' naming would work for
having similar test_then_clear_bit() and not clash with

And yes, some archs would be able to optimize this nicely.

All worth it if I never have to explain it or add special comments
about it again :-)

Jens Axboe