Hi,
在 2023/09/26 20:45, Mariusz Tkaczyk 写道:
On Tue, 26 Sep 2023 10:58:26 +0800
Yu Kuai <yukuai1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
From: Yu Kuai <yukuai3@xxxxxxxxxx>
There are no functional changes, the new helper will still hold
'all_mddevs_lock' after putting mddev, and it will be used to simplify
md_seq_ops.
Signed-off-by: Yu Kuai <yukuai3@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/md/md.c | 18 +++++++++++++++---
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/md/md.c b/drivers/md/md.c
index 10cb4dfbf4ae..a5ef6f7da8ec 100644
--- a/drivers/md/md.c
+++ b/drivers/md/md.c
@@ -616,10 +616,15 @@ static inline struct mddev *mddev_get(struct mddev
*mddev)
static void mddev_delayed_delete(struct work_struct *ws);
-void mddev_put(struct mddev *mddev)
+static void __mddev_put(struct mddev *mddev, bool locked)
{
- if (!atomic_dec_and_lock(&mddev->active, &all_mddevs_lock))
+ if (locked) {
+ spin_lock(&all_mddevs_lock);
+ if (!atomic_dec_and_test(&mddev->active))
+ return;
It is "locked" and we are taking lock? It seems weird to me. Perhaps "do_lock"
would be better? Do you meant "lockdep_assert_held(&all_mddevs_lock);"
Yes, do_lock is a better name, true means this function will return with
lock held.
Something is wrong here, we have two paths and in both cases we are
taking lock.
No, in the first path, lock is held unconditionaly, that's what we
expected in md_seq_show(); in the next path, lock will only be held if
active is decreased to 0.
Thanks,
Kuai
+ } else if (!atomic_dec_and_lock(&mddev->active, &all_mddevs_lock))
return;
+
if (!mddev->raid_disks && list_empty(&mddev->disks) &&
mddev->ctime == 0 && !mddev->hold_active) {
/* Array is not configured at all, and not held active,
@@ -633,7 +638,14 @@ void mddev_put(struct mddev *mddev)
*/
queue_work(md_misc_wq, &mddev->del_work);
}
- spin_unlock(&all_mddevs_lock);
+
+ if (!locked)
+ spin_unlock(&all_mddevs_lock);
As above, I'm not sure if it is correct.
Thanks,
Mariusz
.
