lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Jan]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: About the try to remove cross-release feature entirely by Ingo
From
Date
On 1/1/2018 7:18 PM, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 30, 2017 at 06:00:57PM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
>> On Sat, Dec 30, 2017 at 05:40:28PM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
>>> On Sat, Dec 30, 2017 at 12:44:17PM -0800, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I'm not sure I agree with this part. What if we add a new TCP lock class
>>>> for connections which are used for filesystems/network block devices/...?
>>>> Yes, it'll be up to each user to set the lockdep classification correctly,
>>>> but that's a relatively small number of places to add annotations,
>>>> and I don't see why it wouldn't work.
>>>
>>> I was exagerrating a bit for effect, I admit. (but only a bit).
>
> I feel like there's been rather too much of that recently. Can we stick
> to facts as far as possible, please?
>
>>> It can probably be for all TCP connections that are used by kernel
>>> code (as opposed to userspace-only TCP connections). But it would
>>> probably have to be each and every device-mapper instance, each and
>>> every block device, each and every mounted file system, each and every
>>> bdi object, etc.
>>
>> Clarification: all TCP connections that are used by kernel code would
>> need to be in their own separate lock class. All TCP connections used
>> only by userspace could be in their own shared lock class. You can't
>> use a one lock class for all kernel-used TCP connections, because of
>> the Network Block Device mounted on a local file system which is then
>> exported via NFS and squirted out yet another TCP connection problem.
>
> So the false positive you're concerned about is write-comes-in-over-NFS
> (with socket lock held), NFS sends a write request to local filesystem,
> local filesystem sends write to block device, block device sends a
> packet to a socket which takes that socket lock.
>
> I don't think we need to be as drastic as giving each socket its own lock
> class to solve this. All NFS sockets can be in lock class A; all NBD
> sockets can be in lock class B; all user sockets can be in lock class
> C; etc.
>
>> Also, what to do with TCP connections which are created in userspace
>> (with some authentication exchanges happening in userspace), and then
>> passed into kernel space for use in kernel space, is an interesting
>> question.
>
> Yes! I'd love to have a lockdep expert weigh in here. I believe it's
> legitimate to change a lock's class after it's been used, essentially
> destroying it and reinitialising it. If not, it should be because it's
> a reasonable design for an object to need different lock classes for
> different phases of its existance.

I also think it should be done ultimately. And I think it's very much
hard since it requires to change the dependency graph of lockdep but
anyway possible. It's up to lockdep maintainer's will though..

--
Thanks,
Byungchul

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-01-03 03:29    [W:0.087 / U:0.044 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site