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;
Subject: Re: [Cluster-devel] [PATCH v6 10/19] gfs2: Introduce flag for glock
 holder auto-demotion
To:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
        Andreas Gruenbacher <agruenba@redhat.com>
Cc:     Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@redhat.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
        "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@kernel.org>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        cluster-devel <cluster-devel@redhat.com>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
        ocfs2-devel@oss.oracle.com
References: <20210819194102.1491495-1-agruenba@redhat.com>
 <20210819194102.1491495-11-agruenba@redhat.com>
 <5e8a20a8d45043e88013c6004636eae5dadc9be3.camel@redhat.com>
 <cf284633-a9db-9f88-6b60-4377bc33e473@redhat.com>
 <CAHc6FU7EMOEU7C5ryu5pMMx1v+8CTAOMyGdf=wfaw8=TTA_btQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <8e2ab23b93c96248b7c253dc3ea2007f5244adee.camel@redhat.com>
 <CAHc6FU5uHJSXD+CQk3W9BfZmnBCd+fqHt4Bd+=uVH18rnYCPLg@mail.gmail.com>
 <YSPHR7EL/ujG0Of7@casper.infradead.org>
From:   Bob Peterson <rpeterso@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <43cf01f7-1fb5-26a9-bcda-5c9748c6f32e@redhat.com>
Date:   Mon, 23 Aug 2021 11:36:10 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/78.11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <YSPHR7EL/ujG0Of7@casper.infradead.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 8/23/21 11:05 AM, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 05:18:12PM +0200, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 10:14 AM Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@redhat.com> wrote:
>>> If the goal here is just to allow the glock to be held for a longer
>>> period of time, but with occasional interruptions to prevent
>>> starvation, then we have a potential model for this. There is
>>> cond_resched_lock() which does this for spin locks.
>>
>> This isn't an appropriate model for what I'm trying to achieve here.
>> In the cond_resched case, we know at the time of the cond_resched call
>> whether or not we want to schedule. If we do, we want to drop the spin
>> lock, schedule, and then re-acquire the spin lock. In the case we're
>> looking at here, we want to fault in user pages. There is no way of
>> knowing beforehand if the glock we're currently holding will have to
>> be dropped to achieve that. In fact, it will almost never have to be
>> dropped. But if it does, we need to drop it straight away to allow the
>> conflicting locking request to succeed.
> 
> It occurs to me that this is similar to the wound/wait mutexes
> (include/linux/ww_mutex.h & Documentation/locking/ww-mutex-design.rst).
> You want to mark the glock as woundable before faulting, and then discover
> if it was wounded after faulting.  Maybe sharing this terminology will
> aid in understanding?
> 
Hmm. Woundable. I like it.
Andreas and I argued about the terminology but we never found a 
middle-ground. Perhaps this is it. Thanks, Matthew.

Regards,

Bob Peterson