[Cluster-devel] [PATCH v6 10/19] gfs2: Introduce flag for glock holder auto-demotion
willy at infradead.org
Mon Aug 23 16:05:27 UTC 2021
On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 05:18:12PM +0200, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 10:14 AM Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho at redhat.com> wrote:
> > If the goal here is just to allow the glock to be held for a longer
> > period of time, but with occasional interruptions to prevent
> > starvation, then we have a potential model for this. There is
> > cond_resched_lock() which does this for spin locks.
> This isn't an appropriate model for what I'm trying to achieve here.
> In the cond_resched case, we know at the time of the cond_resched call
> whether or not we want to schedule. If we do, we want to drop the spin
> lock, schedule, and then re-acquire the spin lock. In the case we're
> looking at here, we want to fault in user pages. There is no way of
> knowing beforehand if the glock we're currently holding will have to
> be dropped to achieve that. In fact, it will almost never have to be
> dropped. But if it does, we need to drop it straight away to allow the
> conflicting locking request to succeed.
It occurs to me that this is similar to the wound/wait mutexes
(include/linux/ww_mutex.h & Documentation/locking/ww-mutex-design.rst).
You want to mark the glock as woundable before faulting, and then discover
if it was wounded after faulting. Maybe sharing this terminology will
aid in understanding?
More information about the Cluster-devel