Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2007 15:10:59 +0300 From: Kostik Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> To: Pawel Jakub Dawidek <pjd@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, Ulf Lilleengen <lulf@stud.ntnu.no> Subject: Re: VFS locking questions Message-ID: <20070806121059.GD2738@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> In-Reply-To: <20070806111017.GA4170@garage.freebsd.pl> References: <20070803192910.GA23699@carrot.studby.ntnu.no> <20070806111017.GA4170@garage.freebsd.pl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--G2kvLHdEX2DcGdqq Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Aug 06, 2007 at 01:10:18PM +0200, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote: > On Fri, Aug 03, 2007 at 09:29:33PM +0200, Ulf Lilleengen wrote: > > Hi, > >=20 > > I have a couple of questions regarding VFS, since I'm trying to SMPify = the > > fdescfs code in an effort to get some experience with VFS and freebsd l= ocking... > >=20 > > What is really LK_INTERLOCK? When should it be used? When should one ac= quire it > > (with VI_LOCK i assume), and what are the "semantics"? =20 >=20 > Vnode internal lock (v_interlock, VI_LOCK()) is used to protect various > field in the vnode structure (those marked with 'i' letter in vnode.h). > You pass the LK_INTERLOCK flag to functions like lockmgr(), vn_lock(), > VOP_UNLOCK() when you already hold vnode's interlock. This way if one of > those functions needs vnode's interlock internally, it knows if you > already hold it or not (thus the function needs to acquire it on its > own). We could probably just use mtx_owned() inside those functions. >=20 > > Let's say I have a function that should return a locked vnode. I lock t= he > > hash-table with a regular mutex. Then, when I traverse the list, I chec= k if the > > entry is what I look for. If it is, I call VI_LOCK() on the vnode, use = vget to > > increment refcount, and then use vn_lock(vp, LK_EXCLUSIVE...) to lock t= he vnode > > before the function returns. Is this correct behaviour?=20 >=20 > Instead of doing what you suggest: >=20 > VI_LOCK(vp); > vget(vp, LK_INTERLOCK, td); > vn_lock(vp, LK_EXCLUSIVE, td); >=20 > You can simply call: >=20 > vget(vp, LK_EXCLUSIVE, td); >=20 > This is why: > - You haven't passed LK_INTERLOCK, so vget() will lock it by itself if > needed (it does need it). > - You passed LK_EXCLUSIVE, so vget() will return locked vnode. >=20 > > The LK_INTERLOCK bothers me a bit, because I'm not 100% sure on how it = works. >=20 > It probably mostly an optimization and probably protection before some > races, so you can call various functions with vnode's interlock already > held. You cannot sleep while holding mutex. So, if you hash is locked by mutex, you cannot sleep in lockmgr() waiting for vnode lock. The solution is vnode interlock. Basically, while still holding hash list mutex, you can do VI_LOCK(vp); vholdl(vp); mtx_unlock(hash mutex); error =3D vget(vp, LK_EXCLUSIVE|LK_INTERLOCK, td); if (error) XXX vdrop(vp); avoiding the race with vnode being reclaimed. --G2kvLHdEX2DcGdqq Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (FreeBSD) iD4DBQFGtw/RC3+MBN1Mb4gRAmwiAJiJKXr4yLptppI/9a6iE4X4rq9kAKDJWIAl BHB6NU8iCkh6UpH83d5Wig== =UuJY -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --G2kvLHdEX2DcGdqq--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070806121059.GD2738>