Re: [RFC] inode.i_opflags - Usage of two different locking schemes

[Alexander Lochmann]

On 05.03.21 17:04, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 05, 2021 at 04:35:47PM +0100, Alexander Lochmann wrote:
> > On 05.03.21 16:18, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> > > 1)  I don't see where i_opflags is being read in ipc/mqueue.c at all,
> > > either with or without i_rwsem.
> > It is read in fs/dcache.c
>
> So why is this unique to the mqueue inode then?  It might be helpful
> to have explicit call stacks in the e-mail, in text form, when you
> resend to LKML.
It is unique to mqeue inode, because the control flow goes through 
ipc/mqueue.c where almost always the i_rwsem is taken.
Hence, we see more memory accesses to an mqueue inode with the i_rwsem.
The i_lock is less often hold compared to the i_rwsem.
We conclude the i_rwsem is needed. So it might not be a contradiction at 
all. It rather could be a flaw in our approach. :-/

Besides from our current discussion:
Does the i_lock protect i_opflags for both reading and writing?

Cheers,
Alex

> That's because the HTML file is ***huge*** (1.7Meg), and I'm having
> trouble with my browser properly rendering it.  In any case, the html
> claims to be showing the counter examples and I'm still stuck on the
> *example*?
>
> Cheers,
>
> 					- Ted

--
Technische Universität Dortmund
Alexander Lochmann                PGP key: 0xBC3EF6FD
Otto-Hahn-Str. 16                 phone:  +49.231.7556141
D-44227 Dortmund                  fax:    +49.231.7556116
http://ess.cs.tu-dortmund.de/Staff/al

Attachment: OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature