On Tue, Jan 28, 2025 at 06:06:14AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 28, 2025 at 07:19:11AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > Ok, so now we can get racing inserts, which means this can find
> > the buffer that has just been inserted by another thread in this
> > same function. Or, indeed, and xfs_buf_lookup() call.
>
> Yes.
>
> > What prevents
> > those racing tasks from using this buffer before the task that
> > inserted it can use it?
> >
> > I think that the the buffer lock being initialised to "held" and
> > b_hold being initialised to 1 make this all work correctly,
>
> Exactly, the buffer is inserted with the b_sema held and b_hold
> initializes 1, aka locked and held.
>
> > but
> > comments that explicitly spell out why RCU inserts are safe
> > (both in xfs_buf_alloc() for the init values and here) would be
> > appreciated.
>
> Sure.
Thanks.
> > > struct xfs_buf_cache {
> > > - spinlock_t bc_lock;
> > > struct rhashtable bc_hash;
> > > };
> >
> > At this point, the struct xfs_buf_cache structure can go away,
> > right? (separate patch and all that...)
>
> Yes. And in fact I think the per-pag hash should also go away, as with
> the per-bucket locking there is no point in it. I've had this patch in
> my testing runs for a while, which I think is where we should be
> going:
>
> http://git.infradead.org/?p=users/hch/xfs.git;a=commitdiff;h=890cd2cd255710ee5d3408bc60792b9cdad3adfb
*nod*
Code seems reasonable, but it'll need some benchmarking and
scalability analysis before merging...
-Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
