On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 7:16 PM <andrey.konovalov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> From: Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Currently, stack depot uses the following locking scheme:
>
> 1. Lock-free accesses when looking up a stack record, which allows to
> have multiple users to look up records in parallel;
> 2. Spinlock for protecting the stack depot pools and the hash table
> when adding a new record.
>
> For implementing the eviction of stack traces from stack depot, the
> lock-free approach is not going to work anymore, as we will need to be
> able to also remove records from the hash table.
>
> Convert the spinlock into a read/write lock, and drop the atomic accesses,
> as they are no longer required.
>
> Looking up stack traces is now protected by the read lock and adding new
> records - by the write lock. One of the following patches will add a new
> function for evicting stack records, which will be protected by the write
> lock as well.
>
> With this change, multiple users can still look up records in parallel.
>
> This is preparatory patch for implementing the eviction of stack records
> from the stack depot.
>
> Signed-off-by: Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@xxxxxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: Alexander Potapenko <glider@xxxxxxxxxx>
(but see the comment below)
> static struct stack_record *depot_fetch_stack(depot_stack_handle_t handle)
> {
> union handle_parts parts = { .handle = handle };
> - /*
> - * READ_ONCE pairs with potential concurrent write in
> - * depot_init_pool.
> - */
> - int pools_num_cached = READ_ONCE(pools_num);
> void *pool;
> size_t offset = parts.offset << DEPOT_STACK_ALIGN;
> struct stack_record *stack;
>
> - if (parts.pool_index > pools_num_cached) {
> + lockdep_assert_held(&pool_rwlock);
Shouldn't it be lockdep_assert_held_read()?
