Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Subject: Re: [PATCH] filemap: obey mapping->invalidate_lock lock/unlock order
To:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
CC:     <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
        <linux-mm@kvack.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
References: <20220618083820.35626-1-linmiaohe@huawei.com>
 <Yq2qQcHUZ2UjPk/M@casper.infradead.org>
 <364c8981-95c4-4bf8-cfbf-688c621db5b5@huawei.com>
 <Yq/76OJgZ2GgRReN@casper.infradead.org>
From:   Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@huawei.com>
Message-ID: <72315fc0-eee9-13c8-2d94-43c8c7045a91@huawei.com>
Date:   Mon, 20 Jun 2022 14:35:30 +0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/78.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <Yq/76OJgZ2GgRReN@casper.infradead.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 2022/6/20 12:47, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 20, 2022 at 09:56:06AM +0800, Miaohe Lin wrote:
>> On 2022/6/18 18:34, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>>> On Sat, Jun 18, 2022 at 04:38:20PM +0800, Miaohe Lin wrote:
>>>> The invalidate_locks of two mappings should be unlocked in reverse order
>>>> relative to the locking order in filemap_invalidate_lock_two(). Modifying
>>>
>>> Why?  It's perfectly valid to lock(A) lock(B) unlock(A) unlock(B).
>>> If it weren't we'd have lockdep check it and complain.

It seems I misunderstand your word. I thought you said it must be at lock(A) lock(B) unlock(A) unlock(B)
order... Sorry.

>>
>> For spin_lock, they are lock(A) lock(B) unlock(B) unlock(A) e.g. in copy_huge_pud,
> 
> I think you need to spend some time thinking about the semantics of
> locks and try to figure out why it would make any difference at all
> which order locks (of any type) are _unlocked_ in,

IIUC, the lock orders are important to prevent possible deadlock. But unlock orders should be relaxed
because they won't result in problem indeed. And what I advocate here is that making it at lock(A) lock(B)
unlock(B) unlock(A) order should be a better program practice. Or unlock order shouldn't be obligatory
at practice?

Thanks.

> 
>> copy_huge_pmd, move_huge_pmd and so on:
>> 	dst_ptl = pmd_lock(dst_mm, dst_pmd);
>> 	src_ptl = pmd_lockptr(src_mm, src_pmd);
>> 	spin_lock_nested(src_ptl, SINGLE_DEPTH_NESTING);
>> 	...
>> 	spin_unlock(src_ptl);
>> 	spin_unlock(dst_ptl);
>>
>> For rw_semaphore, they are also lock(A) lock(B) unlock(B) unlock(A) e.g. in dup_mmap():
>> 	mmap_write_lock_killable(oldmm)
>> 	mmap_write_lock_nested(mm, SINGLE_DEPTH_NESTING);
>> 	...
>> 	mmap_write_unlock(mm);
>> 	mmap_write_unlock(oldmm);
>>
>> and ntfs_extend_mft():
>> 	down_write(&ni->file.run_lock);
>> 	down_write_nested(&sbi->used.bitmap.rw_lock, BITMAP_MUTEX_CLUSTERS);
>> 	...
>> 	up_write(&sbi->used.bitmap.rw_lock);
>> 	up_write(&ni->file.run_lock);
>>
>> But I see some lock(A) lock(B) unlock(A) unlock(B) examples in some fs codes. Could you
>> please tell me the right lock/unlock order? I'm somewhat confused now...
>>
>> BTW: If lock(A) lock(B) unlock(A) unlock(B) is requested, filemap_invalidate_lock_two might
>> still need to be changed to respect that order?
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>>>
>>> .
>>>
>>
> 
> .
>