On Fri, 2021-08-20 at 17:22 +0200, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote: > On Fri, Aug 20, 2021 at 3:11 PM Bob Peterson <rpeterso@xxxxxxxxxx> > wrote: > > [snip] > > > > You can almost think of this as a performance enhancement. This > > concept > > allows a process to hold a glock for much longer periods of time, > > at a > > lower priority, for example, when gfs2_file_read_iter needs to hold > > the > > glock for very long-running iterative reads. > > Consider a process that allocates a somewhat large buffer and reads > into it in chunks that are not page aligned. The buffer initially > won't be faulted in, so we fault in the first chunk and write into > it. > Then, when reading the second chunk, we find that the first page of > the second chunk is already present. We fill it, set the > HIF_MAY_DEMOTE flag, fault in more pages, and clear the > HIF_MAY_DEMOTE > flag. If we then still have the glock (which is very likely), we > resume the read. Otherwise, we return a short result. > > Thanks, > Andreas > If the goal here is just to allow the glock to be held for a longer period of time, but with occasional interruptions to prevent starvation, then we have a potential model for this. There is cond_resched_lock() which does this for spin locks. So perhaps we might do something similar: /** * gfs2_glock_cond_regain - Conditionally drop and regain glock * @gl: The glock * @gh: A granted holder for the glock * * If there is a pending demote request for this glock, drop and * requeue a lock request for this glock. If there is no pending * demote request, this is a no-op. In either case the glock is * held on both entry and exit. * * Returns: 0 if no pending demote, 1 if lock dropped and regained */ int gfs2_glock_cond_regain(struct gfs2_glock *gl, struct gfs2_holder *gh); That seems more easily understood, and clearly documents places where the lock may be dropped and regained. I think that the implementation should be simpler and cleaner, compared with the current proposed patch. There are only two bit flags related to pending demotes, for example, so the check should be trivial. It may need a few changes depending on the exact circumstances, but hopefully that illustrates the concept, Steve.
