From: Dominique Martinet <[email protected]>
To: Hao Xu <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected], Jens Axboe <[email protected]>,
Pavel Begunkov <[email protected]>,
Christian Brauner <[email protected]>,
Alexander Viro <[email protected]>,
Stefan Roesch <[email protected]>, Clay Harris <[email protected]>,
Dave Chinner <[email protected]>,
[email protected], Wanpeng Li <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] io_uring: add support for getdents
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2023 01:10:41 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
Hao Xu wrote on Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 03:53:24PM +0800:
> > > + if (file_count(file) > 1)
> >
> > I was curious about this so I found it's basically what __fdget_pos does
> > before deciding it should take the f_pos_lock, and as such this is
> > probably correct... But if someone can chime in here: what guarantees
> > someone else won't __fdget_pos (or equivalent through this) the file
> > again between this and the vfs_getdents call?
> > That second get would make file_count > 1 and it would lock, but lock
> > hadn't been taken here so the other call could get the lock without
> > waiting and both would process getdents or seek or whatever in
> > parallel.
> >
>
> This file_count(file) is atomic_read, so I believe no race condition here.
I don't see how that helps in the presence of another thread getting the
lock after we possibly issued a getdents without the lock, e.g.
t1 call io_uring getdents here
t1 sees file_count(file) == 1 and skips getting lock
t1 starts issuing vfs_getdents [... processing]
t2 calls either io_uring getdents or getdents64 syscall
t2 gets the lock, since it wasn't taken by t1 it can be obtained
t2 issues another vfs_getdents
Christian raised the same issue so I'll leave this to his part of the
thread for reply, but I hope that clarified my concern.
-----
BTW I forgot to point out: this dropped the REWIND bit from my patch; I
believe some form of "seek" is necessary for real applications to make
use of this (for example, a web server could keep the fd open in a LRU
and keep issuing readdir over and over again everytime it gets an
indexing request); not having rewind means it'd need to close and
re-open the fd everytime which doesn't seem optimal.
A previous iteration discussed that real seek is difficult and not
necessarily needed to I settled for rewind, but was there a reason you
decided to stop handling that?
My very egoistical personal use case won't require it, so I can just say
I don't care here, but it would be nice to have a reason explained at
some point
--
Dominique Martinet | Asmadeus
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-07-12 16:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 35+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-07-11 11:40 [PATCH v3 0/3] io_uring getdents Hao Xu
2023-07-11 11:40 ` [PATCH 1/3] fs: split off vfs_getdents function of getdents64 syscall Hao Xu
2023-07-11 13:02 ` Ammar Faizi
2023-07-12 8:03 ` Hao Xu
2023-07-12 13:55 ` Ammar Faizi
2023-07-13 4:17 ` Hao Xu
2023-07-11 23:41 ` Dave Chinner
2023-07-11 23:50 ` Jens Axboe
2023-07-12 11:14 ` Christian Brauner
2023-07-11 11:40 ` [PATCH 2/3] vfs_getdents/struct dir_context: add flags field Hao Xu
2023-07-12 11:31 ` Christian Brauner
2023-07-12 16:02 ` Dominique Martinet
2023-07-13 4:12 ` Hao Xu
2023-07-11 11:40 ` [PATCH 3/3] io_uring: add support for getdents Hao Xu
2023-07-11 12:15 ` Dominique Martinet
2023-07-12 7:53 ` Hao Xu
2023-07-12 16:10 ` Dominique Martinet [this message]
2023-07-13 4:05 ` Hao Xu
2023-07-13 4:40 ` Hao Xu
2023-07-13 4:50 ` Dominique Martinet
2023-07-12 8:01 ` Hao Xu
2023-07-12 15:27 ` Christian Brauner
2023-07-13 4:35 ` Hao Xu
2023-07-13 7:10 ` Christian Brauner
2023-07-13 9:06 ` Hao Xu
2023-07-13 15:14 ` Christian Brauner
2023-07-16 11:57 ` Hao Xu
2023-07-18 6:55 ` Hao Xu
2023-07-11 23:47 ` [PATCH v3 0/3] io_uring getdents Dave Chinner
2023-07-11 23:51 ` Jens Axboe
2023-07-12 0:53 ` Dominique Martinet
2023-07-12 0:56 ` Jens Axboe
2023-07-12 3:16 ` Hao Xu
2023-07-12 3:12 ` Hao Xu
2023-07-12 3:19 ` Hao Xu
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox