Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Message-ID: <13e21e4c9a5841243c8d130cf9324f6cfc4dc2e1.camel@themaw.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/6] kernfs: proposed locking and concurrency
 improvement
From:   Ian Kent <raven@themaw.net>
To:     Fox Chen <foxhlchen@gmail.com>
Cc:     akpm@linux-foundation.org, dhowells@redhat.com,
        gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, miklos@szeredi.hu,
        ricklind@linux.vnet.ibm.com, sfr@canb.auug.org.au, tj@kernel.org,
        viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk
Date:   Fri, 11 Dec 2020 10:17:47 +0800
In-Reply-To: <822f02508d495ee7398450774eb13e5116ec82ac.camel@themaw.net>
References: <159237905950.89469.6559073274338175600.stgit@mickey.themaw.net>
         <20201210164423.9084-1-foxhlchen@gmail.com>
         <822f02508d495ee7398450774eb13e5116ec82ac.camel@themaw.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
User-Agent: Evolution 3.36.5 (3.36.5-1.fc32) 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, 2020-12-11 at 10:01 +0800, Ian Kent wrote:
> 
> > For the patches, there is a mutex_lock in kn->attr_mutex, as Tejun
> > mentioned here 
> > (https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/X8fe0cmu+aq1gi7O@mtj.duckdns.org/),
> > maybe a global 
> > rwsem for kn->iattr will be better??
> 
> I wasn't sure about that, IIRC a spin lock could be used around the
> initial check and checked again at the end which would probably have
> been much faster but much less conservative and a bit more ugly so
> I just went the conservative path since there was so much change
> already.

Sorry, I hadn't looked at Tejun's reply yet and TBH didn't remember
it.

Based on what Tejun said it sounds like that needs work.

Ian