Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:5 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:5;
Date:   Wed, 1 Nov 2023 22:48:55 +0000
From:   Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
To:     Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Cc:     David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
        Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>,
        Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com>,
        linux-afs@lists.infradead.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rxrpc_find_service_conn_rcu: use read_seqbegin() rather
 than read_seqbegin_or_lock()
Message-ID: <20231101224855.GJ1957730@ZenIV>
References: <20231027095842.GA30868@redhat.com>
 <1952182.1698853516@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
 <20231101202302.GB32034@redhat.com>
 <20231101205238.GI1957730@ZenIV>
 <20231101215214.GD32034@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20231101215214.GD32034@redhat.com>
Sender: Al Viro <viro@ftp.linux.org.uk>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Nov 01, 2023 at 10:52:15PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:

> > Why would you want to force that "switch to locked on the second pass" policy
> > on every possible caller?
> 
> Because this is what (I think) read_seqbegin_or_lock() is supposed to do.
> It should take the lock for writing if the lockless access failed. At least
> according to the documentation.

Not really - it's literally seqbegin or lock, depending upon what the caller
tells it...  IMO the mistake in docs is the insistence on using do-while
loop for its users.

Take a look at d_walk() and try to shoehorn that into your variant.  Especially
the D_WALK_NORETRY handling...