8:11 a.m.
On Nov 28, 2014, at 11:50 AM, Greg KH <gregkh(a)linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 07:34:10PM +0100, Loïc Pefferkorn wrote:
> Hello Greg,
>
> After some investigation, I think that removing these wrappers is not going to
improve the code readability:
>
> On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 12:54:43PM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 05:15:48PM +0100, Loic Pefferkorn wrote:
>>> Add __acquires() and __releases() function annotations, to fix sparse
warnings related to lock context imbalance.
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/libcfs/hash.c
b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/libcfs/hash.c
>>> index 32da783..7c6e2a3 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/libcfs/hash.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/libcfs/hash.c
>>> @@ -126,18 +126,21 @@ cfs_hash_nl_unlock(union cfs_hash_lock *lock, int
exclusive) {}
>>>
>>> static inline void
>>> cfs_hash_spin_lock(union cfs_hash_lock *lock, int exclusive)
>>> + __acquires(&lock->spin)
>>> {
>>> spin_lock(&lock->spin);
>>> }
>>>
>>> static inline void
>>> cfs_hash_spin_unlock(union cfs_hash_lock *lock, int exclusive)
>>> + __releases(&lock->spin)
>>> {
>>> spin_unlock(&lock->spin);
>>> }
>>
>> Ugh, how horrid, please just delete these functions and push down the
>> spin_lock/unlock calls down into the places these are called.
>
> cfs_hash_spin_lock() and cfs_hash_spin_unlock() are referenced by function pointers
later in the same file:
>
> 165 /** no bucket lock, one spinlock to protect everything */
> 166 static cfs_hash_lock_ops_t cfs_hash_nbl_lops = {
> 167 .hs_lock = cfs_hash_spin_lock,
> 168 .hs_unlock = cfs_hash_spin_unlock,
> 169 .hs_bkt_lock = cfs_hash_nl_lock,
> 170 .hs_bkt_unlock = cfs_hash_nl_unlock,
> 171 };
> 172
> 173 /** spin bucket lock, rehash is enabled */
> 174 static cfs_hash_lock_ops_t cfs_hash_bkt_spin_lops = {
> 175 .hs_lock = cfs_hash_rw_lock,
> 176 .hs_unlock = cfs_hash_rw_unlock,
> 177 .hs_bkt_lock = cfs_hash_spin_lock,
> 178 .hs_bkt_unlock = cfs_hash_spin_unlock,
> 179 };
That's even worse than I imagined. Putting sparse markings on these
function calls is just papering over nonsense. Please work on
unwinding the mess so that you don't need callbacks for locks,
that is an abstraction that isn't needed.
Greg,
in this case these abstractions are not old layering. This is part of
scalable hashing code that we use all over Lustre, since it needs to
handle thousands/millions of clients/connections/files/locks/RPCs
or whatever in a lot of places. Having a single interface to define
and use these hash functions simplifies the code and avoids bugs,
like list_* functions do everywhere else in the kernel.
Depending on how the hash table is declared, it may have read/write
locks or normal spinlocks. The hash table size may be static, or it
may grow when the buckets get too full (since the numbers of items
being hashed may differ by many orders of magnitude on different filesystems) so the
actual locking functions used depend on how the
hash table is set up.
I don't think it is possible to unwind the locking of cfs_hash_* code
since they are accessed via methods depending on the hash.
Cheers, Andreas
>>> static inline void
>>> cfs_hash_rw_lock(union cfs_hash_lock *lock, int exclusive)
>>> + __acquires(&lock->rw)
>>> {
>>> if (!exclusive)
>>> read_lock(&lock->rw);
>>> @@ -147,6 +150,7 @@ cfs_hash_rw_lock(union cfs_hash_lock *lock, int
exclusive)
>>>
>>> static inline void
>>> cfs_hash_rw_unlock(union cfs_hash_lock *lock, int exclusive)
>>> + __releases(&lock->rw)
>>> {
>>> if (!exclusive)
>>> read_unlock(&lock->rw);
>>
>>
>> Same for these.
>
> Likewise for cfs_hash_rw_lock() and cfs_hash_rw_unlock():
>
> 173 /** spin bucket lock, rehash is enabled */
> 174 static cfs_hash_lock_ops_t cfs_hash_bkt_spin_lops = {
> 175 .hs_lock = cfs_hash_rw_lock,
> 176 .hs_unlock = cfs_hash_rw_unlock,
> 177 .hs_bkt_lock = cfs_hash_spin_lock,
> 178 .hs_bkt_unlock = cfs_hash_spin_unlock,
> 179 };
> 180
> 181 /** rw bucket lock, rehash is enabled */
> 182 static cfs_hash_lock_ops_t cfs_hash_bkt_rw_lops = {
> 183 .hs_lock = cfs_hash_rw_lock,
> 184 .hs_unlock = cfs_hash_rw_unlock,
> 185 .hs_bkt_lock = cfs_hash_rw_lock,
> 186 .hs_bkt_unlock = cfs_hash_rw_unlock,
> 187 };
Same here, ick ick ick.
>>> diff --git a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/libcfs/libcfs_lock.c
b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/libcfs/libcfs_lock.c
>>> index 2c199c7..1e529fc 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/libcfs/libcfs_lock.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/libcfs/libcfs_lock.c
>>> @@ -91,6 +91,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(cfs_percpt_lock_alloc);
>>> */
>>> void
>>> cfs_percpt_lock(struct cfs_percpt_lock *pcl, int index)
>>> + __acquires(pcl->pcl_locks[index])
>>> {
>>> int ncpt = cfs_cpt_number(pcl->pcl_cptab);
>>> int i;
>>> @@ -125,6 +126,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(cfs_percpt_lock);
>>> /** unlock a CPU partition */
>>> void
>>> cfs_percpt_unlock(struct cfs_percpt_lock *pcl, int index)
>>> + __releases(pcl->pcl_locks[index])
>>> {
>>> int ncpt = cfs_cpt_number(pcl->pcl_cptab);
>>> int i;
>>> diff --git a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/libcfs/linux/linux-tracefile.c
b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/libcfs/linux/linux-tracefile.c
>>> index 976c61e..257669b 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/libcfs/linux/linux-tracefile.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/libcfs/linux/linux-tracefile.c
>>> @@ -151,6 +151,7 @@ cfs_trace_buf_type_t cfs_trace_buf_idx_get(void)
>>> * for details.
>>> */
>>> int cfs_trace_lock_tcd(struct cfs_trace_cpu_data *tcd, int walking)
>>> + __acquires(&tcd->tc_lock)
>>> {
>>> __LASSERT(tcd->tcd_type < CFS_TCD_TYPE_MAX);
>>> if (tcd->tcd_type == CFS_TCD_TYPE_IRQ)
>>> @@ -165,6 +166,7 @@ int cfs_trace_lock_tcd(struct cfs_trace_cpu_data *tcd,
int walking)
>>> }
>>>
>>> void cfs_trace_unlock_tcd(struct cfs_trace_cpu_data *tcd, int walking)
>>> + __releases(&tcd->tcd_lock)
>>> {
>>> __LASSERT(tcd->tcd_type < CFS_TCD_TYPE_MAX);
>>> if (tcd->tcd_type == CFS_TCD_TYPE_IRQ)
>>> diff --git a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/obdclass/cl_object.c
b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/obdclass/cl_object.c
>>> index ce96bd2..8577f97 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/obdclass/cl_object.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/obdclass/cl_object.c
>>> @@ -193,6 +193,7 @@ static spinlock_t *cl_object_attr_guard(struct cl_object
*o)
>>> * cl_object_attr_get(), cl_object_attr_set().
>>> */
>>> void cl_object_attr_lock(struct cl_object *o)
>>> + __acquires(cl_object_attr_guard(o))
>>> {
>>> spin_lock(cl_object_attr_guard(o));
>>> }
>>> @@ -202,6 +203,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(cl_object_attr_lock);
>>> * Releases data-attributes lock, acquired by cl_object_attr_lock().
>>> */
>>> void cl_object_attr_unlock(struct cl_object *o)
>>> + __releases(cl_object_attr_guard(o))
>>> {
>>> spin_unlock(cl_object_attr_guard(o));
>>> }
>>
>> Same thing here.
>
> These ones are easy to replace, but the naming scheme of all functions in cl_object.c
is consistent,
> from my point of view it ease code reading where they are called, for example in
lustre/lustre/osc/osc_request.c:
>
> before:
>
> 1827 if (valid != 0) {
> 1828 cl_object_attr_lock(obj);
> 1829 cl_object_attr_set(env, obj, attr, valid);
> 1830 cl_object_attr_unlock(obj);
>
> after:
>
> 1827 if (valid != 0) {
> 1828 spin_lock(cl_object_attr_guard(obj));
> 1829 cl_object_attr_set(env, obj, attr, valid);
> 1830 spin_unlock(cl_object_attr_guard(obj));
>
>
> But I'm here for learning, and I would be grateful to have your opinion.
Don't hide "implementation of locks" in functions like this, it only
causes problems. This code has layers of layers of layers of
abstractions due to it wanting to be originally ported to other
operating systems and lots of different kernel versions of Linux itself.
Unwinding and removing those layers is a good thing to do, don't paper
over the nonsense by putting sparse markings on pointless functions.
thanks,
greg k-h
Cheers, Andreas
10:57 p.m.
New subject: [PATCH] staging: lustre: fix sparse warnings related to lock context imbalance
On Tue, Dec 02, 2014 at 02:11:33PM -0700, Andreas Dilger wrote:
On Nov 28, 2014, at 11:50 AM, Greg KH
<gregkh(a)linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 07:34:10PM +0100, Loïc Pefferkorn wrote:
>> Hello Greg,
>>
>> After some investigation, I think that removing these wrappers is not going to
improve the code readability:
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 12:54:43PM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
>>> On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 05:15:48PM +0100, Loic Pefferkorn wrote:
>>>> Add __acquires() and __releases() function annotations, to fix sparse
warnings related to lock context imbalance.
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/libcfs/hash.c
b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/libcfs/hash.c
>>>> index 32da783..7c6e2a3 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/libcfs/hash.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/libcfs/hash.c
>>>> @@ -126,18 +126,21 @@ cfs_hash_nl_unlock(union cfs_hash_lock *lock, int
exclusive) {}
>>>>
>>>> static inline void
>>>> cfs_hash_spin_lock(union cfs_hash_lock *lock, int exclusive)
>>>> + __acquires(&lock->spin)
>>>> {
>>>> spin_lock(&lock->spin);
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> static inline void
>>>> cfs_hash_spin_unlock(union cfs_hash_lock *lock, int exclusive)
>>>> + __releases(&lock->spin)
>>>> {
>>>> spin_unlock(&lock->spin);
>>>> }
>>>
>>> Ugh, how horrid, please just delete these functions and push down the
>>> spin_lock/unlock calls down into the places these are called.
>>
>> cfs_hash_spin_lock() and cfs_hash_spin_unlock() are referenced by function
pointers later in the same file:
>>
>> 165 /** no bucket lock, one spinlock to protect everything */
>> 166 static cfs_hash_lock_ops_t cfs_hash_nbl_lops = {
>> 167 .hs_lock = cfs_hash_spin_lock,
>> 168 .hs_unlock = cfs_hash_spin_unlock,
>> 169 .hs_bkt_lock = cfs_hash_nl_lock,
>> 170 .hs_bkt_unlock = cfs_hash_nl_unlock,
>> 171 };
>> 172
>> 173 /** spin bucket lock, rehash is enabled */
>> 174 static cfs_hash_lock_ops_t cfs_hash_bkt_spin_lops = {
>> 175 .hs_lock = cfs_hash_rw_lock,
>> 176 .hs_unlock = cfs_hash_rw_unlock,
>> 177 .hs_bkt_lock = cfs_hash_spin_lock,
>> 178 .hs_bkt_unlock = cfs_hash_spin_unlock,
>> 179 };
>
> That's even worse than I imagined. Putting sparse markings on these
> function calls is just papering over nonsense. Please work on
> unwinding the mess so that you don't need callbacks for locks,
> that is an abstraction that isn't needed.
Greg,
in this case these abstractions are not old layering. This is part of
scalable hashing code that we use all over Lustre, since it needs to
handle thousands/millions of clients/connections/files/locks/RPCs
or whatever in a lot of places. Having a single interface to define
and use these hash functions simplifies the code and avoids bugs,
like list_* functions do everywhere else in the kernel.
Depending on how the hash table is declared, it may have read/write
locks or normal spinlocks. The hash table size may be static, or it
may grow when the buckets get too full (since the numbers of items
being hashed may differ by many orders of magnitude on different filesystems) so the
actual locking functions used depend on how the
hash table is set up.
I don't think it is possible to unwind the locking of cfs_hash_* code
since they are accessed via methods depending on the hash.
Cheers, Andreas
>>>> static inline void
>>>> cfs_hash_rw_lock(union cfs_hash_lock *lock, int exclusive)
>>>> + __acquires(&lock->rw)
>>>> {
>>>> if (!exclusive)
>>>> read_lock(&lock->rw);
>>>> @@ -147,6 +150,7 @@ cfs_hash_rw_lock(union cfs_hash_lock *lock, int
exclusive)
>>>>
>>>> static inline void
>>>> cfs_hash_rw_unlock(union cfs_hash_lock *lock, int exclusive)
>>>> + __releases(&lock->rw)
>>>> {
>>>> if (!exclusive)
>>>> read_unlock(&lock->rw);
>>>
>>>
>>> Same for these.
>>
>> Likewise for cfs_hash_rw_lock() and cfs_hash_rw_unlock():
>>
>> 173 /** spin bucket lock, rehash is enabled */
>> 174 static cfs_hash_lock_ops_t cfs_hash_bkt_spin_lops = {
>> 175 .hs_lock = cfs_hash_rw_lock,
>> 176 .hs_unlock = cfs_hash_rw_unlock,
>> 177 .hs_bkt_lock = cfs_hash_spin_lock,
>> 178 .hs_bkt_unlock = cfs_hash_spin_unlock,
>> 179 };
>> 180
>> 181 /** rw bucket lock, rehash is enabled */
>> 182 static cfs_hash_lock_ops_t cfs_hash_bkt_rw_lops = {
>> 183 .hs_lock = cfs_hash_rw_lock,
>> 184 .hs_unlock = cfs_hash_rw_unlock,
>> 185 .hs_bkt_lock = cfs_hash_rw_lock,
>> 186 .hs_bkt_unlock = cfs_hash_rw_unlock,
>> 187 };
>
> Same here, ick ick ick.
>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/libcfs/libcfs_lock.c
b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/libcfs/libcfs_lock.c
>>>> index 2c199c7..1e529fc 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/libcfs/libcfs_lock.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/libcfs/libcfs_lock.c
>>>> @@ -91,6 +91,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(cfs_percpt_lock_alloc);
>>>> */
>>>> void
>>>> cfs_percpt_lock(struct cfs_percpt_lock *pcl, int index)
>>>> + __acquires(pcl->pcl_locks[index])
>>>> {
>>>> int ncpt = cfs_cpt_number(pcl->pcl_cptab);
>>>> int i;
>>>> @@ -125,6 +126,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(cfs_percpt_lock);
>>>> /** unlock a CPU partition */
>>>> void
>>>> cfs_percpt_unlock(struct cfs_percpt_lock *pcl, int index)
>>>> + __releases(pcl->pcl_locks[index])
>>>> {
>>>> int ncpt = cfs_cpt_number(pcl->pcl_cptab);
>>>> int i;
>>>> diff --git
a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/libcfs/linux/linux-tracefile.c
b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/libcfs/linux/linux-tracefile.c
>>>> index 976c61e..257669b 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/libcfs/linux/linux-tracefile.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/libcfs/linux/linux-tracefile.c
>>>> @@ -151,6 +151,7 @@ cfs_trace_buf_type_t cfs_trace_buf_idx_get(void)
>>>> * for details.
>>>> */
>>>> int cfs_trace_lock_tcd(struct cfs_trace_cpu_data *tcd, int walking)
>>>> + __acquires(&tcd->tc_lock)
>>>> {
>>>> __LASSERT(tcd->tcd_type < CFS_TCD_TYPE_MAX);
>>>> if (tcd->tcd_type == CFS_TCD_TYPE_IRQ)
>>>> @@ -165,6 +166,7 @@ int cfs_trace_lock_tcd(struct cfs_trace_cpu_data
*tcd, int walking)
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> void cfs_trace_unlock_tcd(struct cfs_trace_cpu_data *tcd, int walking)
>>>> + __releases(&tcd->tcd_lock)
>>>> {
>>>> __LASSERT(tcd->tcd_type < CFS_TCD_TYPE_MAX);
>>>> if (tcd->tcd_type == CFS_TCD_TYPE_IRQ)
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/obdclass/cl_object.c
b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/obdclass/cl_object.c
>>>> index ce96bd2..8577f97 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/obdclass/cl_object.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/obdclass/cl_object.c
>>>> @@ -193,6 +193,7 @@ static spinlock_t *cl_object_attr_guard(struct
cl_object *o)
>>>> * cl_object_attr_get(), cl_object_attr_set().
>>>> */
>>>> void cl_object_attr_lock(struct cl_object *o)
>>>> + __acquires(cl_object_attr_guard(o))
>>>> {
>>>> spin_lock(cl_object_attr_guard(o));
>>>> }
>>>> @@ -202,6 +203,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(cl_object_attr_lock);
>>>> * Releases data-attributes lock, acquired by cl_object_attr_lock().
>>>> */
>>>> void cl_object_attr_unlock(struct cl_object *o)
>>>> + __releases(cl_object_attr_guard(o))
>>>> {
>>>> spin_unlock(cl_object_attr_guard(o));
>>>> }
>>>
>>> Same thing here.
>>
>> These ones are easy to replace, but the naming scheme of all functions in
cl_object.c is consistent,
>> from my point of view it ease code reading where they are called, for example in
lustre/lustre/osc/osc_request.c:
>>
>> before:
>>
>> 1827 if (valid != 0) {
>> 1828 cl_object_attr_lock(obj);
>> 1829 cl_object_attr_set(env, obj, attr, valid);
>> 1830 cl_object_attr_unlock(obj);
>>
>> after:
>>
>> 1827 if (valid != 0) {
>> 1828 spin_lock(cl_object_attr_guard(obj));
>> 1829 cl_object_attr_set(env, obj, attr, valid);
>> 1830 spin_unlock(cl_object_attr_guard(obj));
>>
>>
>> But I'm here for learning, and I would be grateful to have your opinion.
>
> Don't hide "implementation of locks" in functions like this, it only
> causes problems. This code has layers of layers of layers of
> abstractions due to it wanting to be originally ported to other
> operating systems and lots of different kernel versions of Linux itself.
> Unwinding and removing those layers is a good thing to do, don't paper
> over the nonsense by putting sparse markings on pointless functions.
>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h
Cheers, Andreas
Hello,
Thanks for your answer. The annotations look like the best thing to do?
--
Cheers,
Loïc
6:15 p.m.
New subject: [PATCH] staging: lustre: fix sparse warnings related to lock context imbalance
On Dec 7, 2014, at 4:57 AM, Loïc Pefferkorn <loic(a)loicp.eu> wrote:
On Tue, Dec 02, 2014 at 02:11:33PM -0700, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> On Nov 28, 2014, at 11:50 AM, Greg KH <gregkh(a)linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 07:34:10PM +0100, Loïc Pefferkorn wrote:
>>> Hello Greg,
>>>
>>> After some investigation, I think that removing these wrappers is not going
to improve the code readability:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 12:54:43PM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 05:15:48PM +0100, Loic Pefferkorn wrote:
>>>>> Add __acquires() and __releases() function annotations, to fix sparse
warnings related to lock context imbalance.
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/libcfs/hash.c
b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/libcfs/hash.c
>>>>> index 32da783..7c6e2a3 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/libcfs/hash.c
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/libcfs/hash.c
>>>>> @@ -126,18 +126,21 @@ cfs_hash_nl_unlock(union cfs_hash_lock *lock,
int exclusive) {}
>>>>>
>>>>> static inline void
>>>>> cfs_hash_spin_lock(union cfs_hash_lock *lock, int exclusive)
>>>>> + __acquires(&lock->spin)
>>>>> {
>>>>> spin_lock(&lock->spin);
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> static inline void
>>>>> cfs_hash_spin_unlock(union cfs_hash_lock *lock, int exclusive)
>>>>> + __releases(&lock->spin)
>>>>> {
>>>>> spin_unlock(&lock->spin);
>>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> Ugh, how horrid, please just delete these functions and push down the
>>>> spin_lock/unlock calls down into the places these are called.
>>>
>>> cfs_hash_spin_lock() and cfs_hash_spin_unlock() are referenced by function
pointers later in the same file:
>>>
>>> 165 /** no bucket lock, one spinlock to protect everything */
>>> 166 static cfs_hash_lock_ops_t cfs_hash_nbl_lops = {
>>> 167 .hs_lock = cfs_hash_spin_lock,
>>> 168 .hs_unlock = cfs_hash_spin_unlock,
>>> 169 .hs_bkt_lock = cfs_hash_nl_lock,
>>> 170 .hs_bkt_unlock = cfs_hash_nl_unlock,
>>> 171 };
>>> 172
>>> 173 /** spin bucket lock, rehash is enabled */
>>> 174 static cfs_hash_lock_ops_t cfs_hash_bkt_spin_lops = {
>>> 175 .hs_lock = cfs_hash_rw_lock,
>>> 176 .hs_unlock = cfs_hash_rw_unlock,
>>> 177 .hs_bkt_lock = cfs_hash_spin_lock,
>>> 178 .hs_bkt_unlock = cfs_hash_spin_unlock,
>>> 179 };
>>
>> That's even worse than I imagined. Putting sparse markings on these
>> function calls is just papering over nonsense. Please work on
>> unwinding the mess so that you don't need callbacks for locks,
>> that is an abstraction that isn't needed.
>
> Greg,
> in this case these abstractions are not old layering. This is part of
> scalable hashing code that we use all over Lustre, since it needs to
> handle thousands/millions of clients/connections/files/locks/RPCs
> or whatever in a lot of places. Having a single interface to define
> and use these hash functions simplifies the code and avoids bugs,
> like list_* functions do everywhere else in the kernel.
>
> Depending on how the hash table is declared, it may have read/write
> locks or normal spinlocks. The hash table size may be static, or it
> may grow when the buckets get too full (since the numbers of items
> being hashed may differ by many orders of magnitude on different filesystems) so the
actual locking functions used depend on how the
> hash table is set up.
>
> I don't think it is possible to unwind the locking of cfs_hash_* code
> since they are accessed via methods depending on the hash.
>
> Cheers, Andreas
>
>>>>> static inline void
>>>>> cfs_hash_rw_lock(union cfs_hash_lock *lock, int exclusive)
>>>>> + __acquires(&lock->rw)
>>>>> {
>>>>> if (!exclusive)
>>>>> read_lock(&lock->rw);
>>>>> @@ -147,6 +150,7 @@ cfs_hash_rw_lock(union cfs_hash_lock *lock, int
exclusive)
>>>>>
>>>>> static inline void
>>>>> cfs_hash_rw_unlock(union cfs_hash_lock *lock, int exclusive)
>>>>> + __releases(&lock->rw)
>>>>> {
>>>>> if (!exclusive)
>>>>> read_unlock(&lock->rw);
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Same for these.
>>>
>>> Likewise for cfs_hash_rw_lock() and cfs_hash_rw_unlock():
>>>
>>> 173 /** spin bucket lock, rehash is enabled */
>>> 174 static cfs_hash_lock_ops_t cfs_hash_bkt_spin_lops = {
>>> 175 .hs_lock = cfs_hash_rw_lock,
>>> 176 .hs_unlock = cfs_hash_rw_unlock,
>>> 177 .hs_bkt_lock = cfs_hash_spin_lock,
>>> 178 .hs_bkt_unlock = cfs_hash_spin_unlock,
>>> 179 };
>>> 180
>>> 181 /** rw bucket lock, rehash is enabled */
>>> 182 static cfs_hash_lock_ops_t cfs_hash_bkt_rw_lops = {
>>> 183 .hs_lock = cfs_hash_rw_lock,
>>> 184 .hs_unlock = cfs_hash_rw_unlock,
>>> 185 .hs_bkt_lock = cfs_hash_rw_lock,
>>> 186 .hs_bkt_unlock = cfs_hash_rw_unlock,
>>> 187 };
>>
>> Same here, ick ick ick.
>>
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/libcfs/libcfs_lock.c
b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/libcfs/libcfs_lock.c
>>>>> index 2c199c7..1e529fc 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/libcfs/libcfs_lock.c
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/libcfs/libcfs_lock.c
>>>>> @@ -91,6 +91,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(cfs_percpt_lock_alloc);
>>>>> */
>>>>> void
>>>>> cfs_percpt_lock(struct cfs_percpt_lock *pcl, int index)
>>>>> + __acquires(pcl->pcl_locks[index])
>>>>> {
>>>>> int ncpt = cfs_cpt_number(pcl->pcl_cptab);
>>>>> int i;
>>>>> @@ -125,6 +126,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(cfs_percpt_lock);
>>>>> /** unlock a CPU partition */
>>>>> void
>>>>> cfs_percpt_unlock(struct cfs_percpt_lock *pcl, int index)
>>>>> + __releases(pcl->pcl_locks[index])
>>>>> {
>>>>> int ncpt = cfs_cpt_number(pcl->pcl_cptab);
>>>>> int i;
>>>>> diff --git
a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/libcfs/linux/linux-tracefile.c
b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/libcfs/linux/linux-tracefile.c
>>>>> index 976c61e..257669b 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/libcfs/linux/linux-tracefile.c
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/libcfs/linux/linux-tracefile.c
>>>>> @@ -151,6 +151,7 @@ cfs_trace_buf_type_t cfs_trace_buf_idx_get(void)
>>>>> * for details.
>>>>> */
>>>>> int cfs_trace_lock_tcd(struct cfs_trace_cpu_data *tcd, int walking)
>>>>> + __acquires(&tcd->tc_lock)
>>>>> {
>>>>> __LASSERT(tcd->tcd_type < CFS_TCD_TYPE_MAX);
>>>>> if (tcd->tcd_type == CFS_TCD_TYPE_IRQ)
>>>>> @@ -165,6 +166,7 @@ int cfs_trace_lock_tcd(struct cfs_trace_cpu_data
*tcd, int walking)
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> void cfs_trace_unlock_tcd(struct cfs_trace_cpu_data *tcd, int
walking)
>>>>> + __releases(&tcd->tcd_lock)
>>>>> {
>>>>> __LASSERT(tcd->tcd_type < CFS_TCD_TYPE_MAX);
>>>>> if (tcd->tcd_type == CFS_TCD_TYPE_IRQ)
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/obdclass/cl_object.c
b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/obdclass/cl_object.c
>>>>> index ce96bd2..8577f97 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/obdclass/cl_object.c
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/obdclass/cl_object.c
>>>>> @@ -193,6 +193,7 @@ static spinlock_t *cl_object_attr_guard(struct
cl_object *o)
>>>>> * cl_object_attr_get(), cl_object_attr_set().
>>>>> */
>>>>> void cl_object_attr_lock(struct cl_object *o)
>>>>> + __acquires(cl_object_attr_guard(o))
>>>>> {
>>>>> spin_lock(cl_object_attr_guard(o));
>>>>> }
>>>>> @@ -202,6 +203,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(cl_object_attr_lock);
>>>>> * Releases data-attributes lock, acquired by cl_object_attr_lock().
>>>>> */
>>>>> void cl_object_attr_unlock(struct cl_object *o)
>>>>> + __releases(cl_object_attr_guard(o))
>>>>> {
>>>>> spin_unlock(cl_object_attr_guard(o));
>>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> Same thing here.
>>>
>>> These ones are easy to replace, but the naming scheme of all functions in
cl_object.c is consistent,
>>> from my point of view it ease code reading where they are called, for example
in lustre/lustre/osc/osc_request.c:
>>>
>>> before:
>>>
>>> 1827 if (valid != 0) {
>>> 1828 cl_object_attr_lock(obj);
>>> 1829 cl_object_attr_set(env, obj, attr, valid);
>>> 1830 cl_object_attr_unlock(obj);
>>>
>>> after:
>>>
>>> 1827 if (valid != 0) {
>>> 1828 spin_lock(cl_object_attr_guard(obj));
>>> 1829 cl_object_attr_set(env, obj, attr, valid);
>>> 1830 spin_unlock(cl_object_attr_guard(obj));
>>>
>>>
>>> But I'm here for learning, and I would be grateful to have your opinion.
>>
>> Don't hide "implementation of locks" in functions like this, it
only
>> causes problems. This code has layers of layers of layers of
>> abstractions due to it wanting to be originally ported to other
>> operating systems and lots of different kernel versions of Linux itself.
>> Unwinding and removing those layers is a good thing to do, don't paper
>> over the nonsense by putting sparse markings on pointless functions.
>>
>> thanks,
>>
>> greg k-h
>
>
> Cheers, Andreas
Hello,
Thanks for your answer. The annotations look like the best thing to do?
Yes, the annotations still make sense.
Cheers, Andreas
1:58 a.m.
New subject: [PATCH] staging: lustre: fix sparse warnings related to lock context imbalance
>>> Don't hide "implementation of locks" in
functions like this, it only
>>> causes problems. This code has layers of layers of layers of
>>> abstractions due to it wanting to be originally ported to other
>>> operating systems and lots of different kernel versions of Linux itself.
>>> Unwinding and removing those layers is a good thing to do, don't paper
>>> over the nonsense by putting sparse markings on pointless functions.
>>>
>>> thanks,
>>>
>>> greg k-h
>>
>>
>> Cheers, Andreas
>
> Hello,
>
> Thanks for your answer. The annotations look like the best thing to do?
Yes, the annotations still make sense.
Cheers, Andreas
Hello guys,
I believe this patch is still relevant, and can be applied against next-20141212.
--
Cheers,
Loïc
10:29 a.m.
New subject: [PATCH] staging: lustre: fix sparse warnings related to lock context imbalance
On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 03:58:46PM +0100, Loïc Pefferkorn wrote:
> >>> Don't hide "implementation of locks"
in functions like this, it only
> >>> causes problems. This code has layers of layers of layers of
> >>> abstractions due to it wanting to be originally ported to other
> >>> operating systems and lots of different kernel versions of Linux
itself.
> >>> Unwinding and removing those layers is a good thing to do, don't
paper
> >>> over the nonsense by putting sparse markings on pointless functions.
> >>>
> >>> thanks,
> >>>
> >>> greg k-h
> >>
> >>
> >> Cheers, Andreas
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > Thanks for your answer. The annotations look like the best thing to do?
>
> Yes, the annotations still make sense.
>
> Cheers, Andreas
Hello guys,
I believe this patch is still relevant, and can be applied against next-20141212.
If so, please resend, as I don't have it in my queue anymore.
thanks,
greg k-h
5:56 a.m.
New subject: [PATCH] staging: lustre: fix sparse warnings related to lock context imbalance
On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 03:29:01PM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 03:58:46PM +0100, Loïc Pefferkorn wrote:
> > >>> Don't hide "implementation of locks" in functions
like this, it only
> > >>> causes problems. This code has layers of layers of layers of
> > >>> abstractions due to it wanting to be originally ported to other
> > >>> operating systems and lots of different kernel versions of Linux
itself.
> > >>> Unwinding and removing those layers is a good thing to do,
don't paper
> > >>> over the nonsense by putting sparse markings on pointless
functions.
> > >>>
> > >>> thanks,
> > >>>
> > >>> greg k-h
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Cheers, Andreas
> > >
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > Thanks for your answer. The annotations look like the best thing to do?
> >
> > Yes, the annotations still make sense.
> >
> > Cheers, Andreas
>
> Hello guys,
>
> I believe this patch is still relevant, and can be applied against next-20141212.
If so, please resend, as I don't have it in my queue anymore.
thanks,
greg k-h
Hi Greg,
Done: https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/1/20/841
--
Cheers,
Loïc
2797
days inactive
2847
days old
5 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
Andreas Dilger -
Greg KH -
Loïc Pefferkorn