Hi Paul.

On Mon, Sep 10, 2007 at 03:14:45PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney (paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com) wrote:
quoted text
> > Further TODO list includes:
> > * implement optional saving of mirroring/linear information on the remote
> > 	nodes (simple)
> > * implement netlink based setup (simple)
> > * new redundancy algorithm (complex)
> > 
> > Homepage:
> > http://tservice.net.ru/~s0mbre/old/?section=projects&item=dst
> 
> A couple questions below, but otherwise looks good from an RCU viewpoint.
> 
> 							Thanx, Paul

Thanks for your comments, and sorry for late reply I was at KS/London
trip.
quoted text
> > +	if (--num) {
> > +		list_for_each_entry_rcu(n, &node->shared, shared) {
> 
> This function is called under rcu_read_lock() or similar, right?
> (Can't tell from this patch.)  It is also OK to call it from under the
> update-side mutex, of course.

Actually not, but it does not require it, since entry can not be removed
during this operations since appropriate reference counter for given node is
being held. It should not be RCU at all.

quoted text
> > +static int dst_mirror_read(struct dst_request *req)
> > +{
> > +	struct dst_node *node = req->node, *n, *min_dist_node;
> > +	struct dst_mirror_priv *priv = node->priv;
> > +	u64 dist, d;
> > +	int err;
> > +
> > +	req->bio_endio = &dst_mirror_read_endio;
> > +
> > +	do {
> > +		err = -ENODEV;
> > +		min_dist_node = NULL;
> > +		dist = -1ULL;
> > + 
> > +		/*
> > +		 * Reading is never performed from the node under resync.
> > +		 * If this will cause any troubles (like all nodes must be
> > +		 * resynced between each other), this check can be removed
> > +		 * and per-chunk dirty bit can be tested instead.
> > +		 */
> > +
> > +		if (!test_bit(DST_NODE_NOTSYNC, &node->flags)) {
> > +			priv = node->priv;
> > +			if (req->start > priv->last_start)
> > +				dist = req->start - priv->last_start;
> > +			else
> > +				dist = priv->last_start - req->start;
> > +			min_dist_node = req->node;
> > +		}
> > +
> > +		list_for_each_entry_rcu(n, &node->shared, shared) {
> 
> I see one call to this function that appears to be under the update-side
> mutex, but I cannot tell if the other calls are safe.  (Safe as in either
> under the update-side mutex or under rcu_read_lock() and friends.)

The same here - those processing function are called from
generic_make_request() from any lock on top of them. Each node is linked
into the list of the first added node, which reference counter is
increased in higher layer. Right now there is no way to add or remove
nodes after array was started, such functionality requires storage tree
lock to be taken and RCU can not be used (since it requires sleeping and
I did not investigate sleepable RCU for this purpose).

So, essentially RCU is not used in DST :)

Thanks for review, Paul.

-- 
	Evgeniy Polyakov
-
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/