On 08.02.21 16:27, Jan Kara wrote:

Hi Alexander!

On Fri 05-02-21 16:31:54, Alexander Lochmann wrote:

quoted

have you had the chance to review our results?

It fell through the cracks I guess. Thanks for pinging. Let me have a look.

quoted

On 15.10.20 15:56, Alexander Lochmann wrote:

quoted

Hi folks,

when comparing our generated locking documentation with the current
documentation
located in include/linux/jbd2.h, I found some inconsistencies. (Our
approach: https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3302424.3303948)
According to the official documentation, the following members should be
read using a lock:
journal_t
- j_flags: j_state_lock
- j_barrier_count: j_state_lock
- j_running_transaction: j_state_lock
- j_commit_sequence: j_state_lock
- j_commit_request: j_state_lock
transactiont_t
- t_nr_buffers: j_list_lock
- t_buffers: j_list_lock
- t_reserved_list: j_list_lock
- t_shadow_list: j_list_lock
jbd2_inode
- i_transaction: j_list_lock
- i_next_transaction: j_list_lock
- i_flags: j_list_lock
- i_dirty_start: j_list_lock
- i_dirty_start: j_list_lock

However, our results say that no locks are needed at all for *reading*
those members.
 From what I know, it is common wisdom that word-sized data types can be
read without any lock in the Linux kernel.

Yes, although in last year, people try to convert these unlocked reads to
READ_ONCE() or similar as otherwise the compiler is apparently allowed to
generate code which is not safe. But that's a different story.

Is this ongoing work?
Using such a macro would a) make our work much easier as we can 
instrument them, and b) would tell less experienced developers that no 
locking is needed.
Does the usage of READ_ONCE() imply that no lock is needed?
Otherwise, one could introduce another macro for jbd2, such as #define 
READ_UNLOCKED() READ_ONCE(), which is more precise.
  Also note

that although reading that particular word may be safe without any other
locks, the lock still may be needed to safely interpret the value in the
context of other fetched values (e.g., due to consistency among multiple
structure members). 

Just a side quest: Do you have an example for such a situation?
So sometimes requiring the lock is just the least

problematic solution - there's always the tradeoff between the speed and
simplicity.

quoted

quoted

All of the above members have word size, i.e., int, long, or ptr.
Is it therefore safe to split the locking documentation as follows?
@j_flags: General journaling state flags [r:nolocks, w:j_state_lock]

I've checked the code and we usually use unlocked reads for quick, possibly
racy checks and if they indicate we may need to do something then take the
lock and do a reliable check. This is quite common pattern, not sure how to
best document this. Maybe like [j_state_lock, no lock for quick racy checks]?

Yeah, I'm fine with that. Does this rule apply for the other members of 
journal_t (and transaction_t?) listed above?

quoted

quoted

The following members are not word-sizes. Our results also suggest that
no locks are needed.
Can the proposed change be applied to them as well?
transaction_t
- t_chp_stats: j_checkpoint_sem

Where do we read t_chp_stats outside of a lock? j_list_lock seems to be
used pretty consistently there. Except perhaps
__jbd2_journal_remove_checkpoint() but there we know we are already the
only ones touching the transaction and thus its statistics.

I'm sorry. That's my mistake. There's no access without a lock.

quoted

quoted

jbd2_inode:
- i_list: j_list_lock

And here as well. I would not complicate the locking description unless we
really have places that access these fields without locks...

Same here.

- Alex

								Honza

-- 
Technische Universität Dortmund
Alexander Lochmann                PGP key: 0xBC3EF6FD
Otto-Hahn-Str. 16                 phone:  +49.231.7556141
D-44227 Dortmund                  fax:    +49.231.7556116
http://ess.cs.tu-dortmund.de/Staff/al