lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Aug]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 06/10] VFS: support concurrent renames.
Date
On Sat, 27 Aug 2022, Al Viro wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 26, 2022 at 12:10:43PM +1000, NeilBrown wrote:
> > Allow object can now be renamed from or to a directory in which a create
> > or unlink is concurrently happening.
> >
> > Two or more renames with the one directory can also be concurrent.
> > s_vfs_rename_mutex still serialises lookups for cross-directory renames,
> > but the renames themselves can proceed concurrently.
>
> Wha...? <checks>
> Not true, fortunately - you *do* hold ->s_vfs_rename_mutex over the
> rename itself. If not for that, it would be utterly broken.
> And I don't care for NFS server rejecting that - we are *NOT* taking
> loop prevention logics into every filesystem. It's highly non-local
> and trying to handle it with your per-dentry flags is going to be
> painful as hell, if at all possible.
>

I don't know what happened there - I let myself get confused somewhere
in the process. You are of course right that s_vfs_rename_mutex is held
the whole time. I wasn't intending to try to change that.

> > + if (d1 < d2) {
> > + ok1 = d_lock_update_nested(d1, p1, last1, I_MUTEX_PARENT);
> > + ok2 = d_lock_update_nested(d2, p2, last2, I_MUTEX_PARENT2);
> > + } else {
> > + ok2 = d_lock_update_nested(d2, p2, last2, I_MUTEX_PARENT);
> > + ok1 = d_lock_update_nested(d1, p1, last1, I_MUTEX_PARENT2);
> > + }
>
> Explain, please. What's that ordering about?
>
Deadlock avoidance, just like in the same-directory case.

But I guess as s_vfs_rename_mutex is held, ordering cannot matter.
I'll remove the ordering.

Thanks,
NeilBrown

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-08-29 05:11    [W:0.068 / U:0.460 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site