On 07/13/2013 12:58 PM, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> Hi,
>
> (2013/07/09 10:09), Waiman Long wrote:> +/**
>> + * lockref_put_or_lock - decrements count unless count <= 1 before decrement
>> + * @lockcnt: pointer to lockref structure
>> + * Return: 1 if count updated successfully or 0 if count <= 1 and lock taken
>> + *
>> + * The only difference between lockref_put_or_lock and lockref_put is that
>> + * the former function will hold the lock on return while the latter one
>> + * will free it on return.
>> + */
>> +static __always_inline int lockref_put_or_locked(struct lockref *lockcnt)
> Here is a function name typo. _locked should be _lock.
> And also, I think we should take a note here to tell this function does *not*
> guarantee lockcnt->refcnt == 0 or 1 until unlocked if this returns 0.
Thank for pointing this out. I will fix the typo and add additional note
to the comments.
>> +{
>> + spin_lock(&lockcnt->lock);
>> + if (likely(lockcnt->refcnt > 1)) {
>> + lockcnt->refcnt--;
>> + spin_unlock(&lockcnt->lock);
>> + return 1;
>> + }
>> + return 0;
>> +}
> Using this implementation guarantees lockcnt->refcnt == 0 or 1 until unlocked
> if this returns 0.
>
> However, the below one looks not guarantee it. Since lockref_add_unless
> and spinlock are not done atomically, there is a chance for someone
> to increment it right before locking.
>
> Or, I missed something?
For both functions, reference count won't be decremented to 0 and the
caller has to handle this case by taking the lock and do whatever it
needs to handle it. When refcnt > 1, decrement is done atomically either
by cmpxchg or with the spinlock hold. The reason for these 2 functions
is to save an extra lock/unlock sequence when this feature is disabled.
I will add comments to clarify that.
>> +/**
>> + * lockref_put_or_lock - Decrements count unless the count is <= 1
>> + * otherwise, the lock will be taken
>> + * @lockcnt: pointer to struct lockref structure
>> + * Return: 1 if count updated successfully or 0 if count <= 1 and lock taken
>> + */
>> +int
>> +lockref_put_or_lock(struct lockref *lockcnt)
>> +{
>> + if (lockref_add_unless(lockcnt, -1, 1))
>> + return 1;
>> + spin_lock(&lockcnt->lock);
>> + return 0;
>> +}
> BTW, it looks that your dcache patch knows this and keeps double check for
> the case of lockcnt->refcnt > 1 in dput().
There is a slight chance that the refcnt may be changed in between
locked section of code. So it is prudent to double check before
decrementing it to zero.
Regards,
Longman
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
