On Mon, Aug 08, 2022 at 10:57:45AM -0400, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 8 Aug 2022, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Aug 08, 2022 at 10:26:10AM -0400, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
> > > On Sun, 7 Aug 2022, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > > > > +static __always_inline void set_buffer_locked(struct buffer_head *bh)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > + set_bit(BH_Lock, &bh->b_state);
> > > > > +}
> > > > > +
> > > > > +static __always_inline int buffer_locked(const struct buffer_head *bh)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > + bool ret = test_bit(BH_Lock, &bh->b_state);
> > > > > + /*
> > > > > + * pairs with smp_mb__after_atomic in unlock_buffer
> > > > > + */
> > > > > + if (!ret)
> > > > > + smp_acquire__after_ctrl_dep();
> > > > > + return ret;
> > > > > +}
> > > >
> > > > Are there places that think that lock/unlock buffer implies a memory
> > > > barrier?
> > >
> > > There's this in fs/reiserfs:
> > >
> > > if (!buffer_dirty(bh) && !buffer_locked(bh)) {
> > > reiserfs_free_jh(bh); <--- this could be moved before buffer_locked
> >
> > It might be better to think of buffer_locked() as
> > buffer_someone_has_exclusive_access(). I can't see the problem with
> > moving the reads in reiserfs_free_jh() before the read of buffer_locked.
> >
> > > if (buffer_locked((journal->j_header_bh))) {
> > > ...
> > > }
> > > journal->j_last_flush_trans_id = trans_id;
> > > journal->j_first_unflushed_offset = offset;
> > > jh = (struct reiserfs_journal_header *)(journal->j_header_bh->b_data); <--- this could be moved before buffer_locked
> >
> > I don't think b_data is going to be changed while someone else holds
> > the buffer locked. That's initialised by set_bh_page(), which is an
> > initialisation-time thing, before the BH is visible to any other thread.
>
> So, do you think that we don't need a barrier in buffer_locked()?
The question to ask here is "What prevents another call to buffer_locked()
from returning false?"
> There is also this (where the BUG_ON(!buffer_uptodate(bh)) saves it).
> if (buffer_locked(bh)) {
Right here, for example. If something prevents any change that might
cause buffer_locked() to return false here, we don't need a barrier.
If there is nothing preventing such a change, how is a barrier going
to help?
One way this code could be correct is if the above check is a heuristic,
so that a false positive just consumes a bit more CPU and a false negative
just delays this action.
I must leave final judgment to those having better understanding of this
code than do I.
Thanx, Paul
> int depth;
> PROC_INFO_INC(sb, scan_bitmap.wait);
> depth = reiserfs_write_unlock_nested(sb);
> __wait_on_buffer(bh);
> reiserfs_write_lock_nested(sb, depth);
> }
> BUG_ON(!buffer_uptodate(bh));
> BUG_ON(atomic_read(&bh->b_count) == 0);
>
> if (info->free_count == UINT_MAX)
> reiserfs_cache_bitmap_metadata(sb, bh, info); <--- this could be moved before buffer_locked if there were no BUG_ONs
>
> Mikulas
>
