lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Feb]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCHv6 1/3] rdmacg: Added rdma cgroup controller
From
On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 5:33 PM, Haggai Eran <haggaie@mellanox.com> wrote:
>>>> +retry:
>>>> + spin_lock(&cg->rpool_list_lock);
>>>> + rpool = find_cg_rpool_locked(cg, device);
>>>> + if (!rpool) {
>>>> + spin_unlock(&cg->rpool_list_lock);
>>>> + ret = alloc_cg_rpool(cg, device);
>>>> + if (ret)
>>>> + goto err;
>>>> + else
>>>> + goto retry;
>>> Instead of retrying after allocation of a new rpool, why not just return the
>>> newly allocated rpool (or the existing one) from alloc_cg_rpool?
>>
>> It can be done, but locking semantics just becomes difficult to
>> review/maintain with that where alloc_cg_rpool will unlock and lock
>> conditionally later on.
> Maybe I'm missing something, but couldn't you simply lock rpool_list_lock
> inside alloc_cg_rpool()? It already does that around its call to
> find_cg_rpool_locked() and the insertion to cg_list.

No. ref_count and usage counters are updated at level where lock is
taken in charge_cg_resource().
If I move locking rpool_list_lock inside alloc_cg_rpool, unlocking
will continue outside, alloc_cg_rpool() when its found or allocated.
As you acknowledged in below comment that this makes confusing to
lock/unlock from different context, I think current implementation
achieves both.
(a) take lock from single context
(b) keep functionality of find and alloc in two separate individual functions

>
>> This path will be hit anyway on first allocation typically. Once
>> application is warm up, it will be unlikely to enter here.
>> I should change if(!rpool) to if (unlikely(!rpool)).
> Theoretically the new allocated rpool can be released again by the time you
> get to the second call to find_cg_rpool_locked().
>
Thats ok, because if that occurs find_cg_rpool_locked() won't find the
entry and will try to allocate again.
Things work fine in that case.

> I thought that was about functions that only locked the lock, called the
> find function, and released the lock. What I'm suggesting is to have one
> function that does "lock + find + allocate if needed + unlock",

I had similar function in past which does,
"lock + find + allocate if needed + + inc_ref_cnt + unlock", (get_cg_rpool)
update usage_counter atomically, because other thread/process might update too.
check atomic_dec_cnt - on reaching zero, "lock + del_entry + unlock + free".

Tejun asked to simplify this to,

"lock + find + allocate if needed + inc_ref_cnt_without_atomic" + unlock".
which I did in this patch v6.

> and another
> function that does (under caller's lock) "check ref count + check max count +
> release rpool".
This can be done. Have one dumb basic question for thiat.
Can we call kfree() with spin_lock held? All these years I tend to
avoid doing so.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-02-25 15:01    [W:0.068 / U:0.300 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site