Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:3 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:3;
Date:   Thu, 2 Nov 2023 00:17:02 +0100
From:   Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To:     Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
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: <20231101231701.GH32034@redhat.com>
References: <20231027095842.GA30868@redhat.com>
 <1952182.1698853516@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
 <20231101202302.GB32034@redhat.com>
 <20231101205238.GI1957730@ZenIV>
 <20231101215214.GD32034@redhat.com>
 <20231101224855.GJ1957730@ZenIV>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20231101224855.GJ1957730@ZenIV>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Precedence: bulk

On 11/01, Al Viro wrote:
>
> 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...

OK, I won't argue right now. But again, this patch doesn't change the current
behaviour. Exactly because the caller does NOT tell read_seqbegin_or_lock() that
it wants "or lock" on the 2nd pass.

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

I am already sleeping, quite possibly I am wrong. But it seems that if we change
done_seqretry() then d_walk() needs something like

	--- a/fs/dcache.c
	+++ b/fs/dcache.c
	@@ -1420,7 +1420,7 @@ static void d_walk(struct dentry *parent, void *data,
			spin_lock(&this_parent->d_lock);
	 
			/* might go back up the wrong parent if we have had a rename. */
	-		if (need_seqretry(&rename_lock, seq))
	+		if (need_seqretry(&rename_lock, &seq))
				goto rename_retry;
			/* go into the first sibling still alive */
			do {
	@@ -1432,22 +1432,20 @@ static void d_walk(struct dentry *parent, void *data,
			rcu_read_unlock();
			goto resume;
		}
	-	if (need_seqretry(&rename_lock, seq))
	+	if (need_seqretry(&rename_lock, &seq))
			goto rename_retry;
		rcu_read_unlock();
	 
	 out_unlock:
		spin_unlock(&this_parent->d_lock);
	-	done_seqretry(&rename_lock, seq);
	+	done_seqretry(&rename_lock, &seq);
		return;
	 
	 rename_retry:
		spin_unlock(&this_parent->d_lock);
		rcu_read_unlock();
	-	BUG_ON(seq & 1);
		if (!retry)
			return;
	-	seq = 1;
		goto again;
	 }


But again, again, this is off-topic and needs another discussion. Right now I am just
trying to audit the users of read_seqbegin_or_lock/need_seqretry and change those who
use them incorrectly.

Oleg.