Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20200308140314.GQ5972@shao2-debian> <e3783d060c778cb41b77380ad3e278133b52f57e.camel@kernel.org>
 <CAHk-=whGK712fPqmQ3FSHxqe3Aqny4bEeWEvfaytLeLV2+ijCQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <34355c4fe6c3968b1f619c60d5ff2ca11a313096.camel@kernel.org>
 <1bfba96b4bf0d3ca9a18a2bced3ef3a2a7b44dad.camel@kernel.org>
 <87blp5urwq.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name> <41c83d34ae4c166f48e7969b2b71e43a0f69028d.camel@kernel.org>
 <ed73fb5d-ddd5-fefd-67ae-2d786e68544a@huawei.com> <923487db2c9396c79f8e8dd4f846b2b1762635c8.camel@kernel.org>
 <36c58a6d07b67aac751fca27a4938dc1759d9267.camel@kernel.org>
 <878sk7vs8q.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name> <c4ef31a663fbf7a3de349696e9f00f2f5c4ec89a.camel@kernel.org>
 <875zfbvrbm.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name> <CAHk-=wg8N4fDRC3M21QJokoU+TQrdnv7HqoaFW-Z-ZT8z_Bi7Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <0066a9f150a55c13fcc750f6e657deae4ebdef97.camel@kernel.org>
 <CAHk-=whUgeZGcs5YAfZa07BYKNDCNO=xr4wT6JLATJTpX0bjGg@mail.gmail.com> <87v9nattul.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name>
In-Reply-To: <87v9nattul.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name>
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Date:   Wed, 11 Mar 2020 17:38:14 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wiNoAk8v3GrbK3=q6KRBrhLrTafTmWmAo6-up6Ce9fp6A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [locks] 6d390e4b5d: will-it-scale.per_process_ops -96.6% regression
To:     NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>
Cc:     Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>, yangerkun <yangerkun@huawei.com>,
        kernel test robot <rong.a.chen@intel.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, lkp@lists.01.org,
        Bruce Fields <bfields@fieldses.org>,
        Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 3:22 PM NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de> wrote:
>
> We can combine the two ideas - move the list_del_init() later, and still
> protect it with the wq locks.  This avoids holding the lock across the
> callback, but provides clear atomicity guarantees.

Ugfh. Honestly, this is disgusting.

Now you re-take the same lock in immediate succession for the
non-callback case.  It's just hidden.

And it's not like the list_del_init() _needs_ the lock (it's not
currently called with the lock held).

So that "hold the lock over list_del_init()" seems to be horrendously
bogus. It's only done as a serialization thing for that optimistic
case.

And that optimistic case doesn't even *want* that kind of
serialization. It really just wants a "I'm done" flag.

So no. Don't do this. It's mis-using the lock in several ways.

             Linus