On 11.07.2011 22:45, Hugo Mills wrote:
> OK, here's the remainder of my comments for this file. Not much for
> this bit -- just one comment about locking, a reminder, and an
> observation.
Again, I ripped out the bits I simply corrected. My comments below.
> [...]
>
>> +static int scrub_write_progress(pthread_mutex_t *m, const char *fsid,
>> + struct scrub_progress* data, int n)
>> +{
>> + int ret;
>> + int fd;
>> + int old;
>> +
>> + ret = pthread_mutex_lock(m);
>> + if (ret) {
>> + ret = -errno;
>> + goto out;
>> + }
>> +
>> + pthread_setcancelstate(PTHREAD_CANCEL_DISABLE, &old);
>
> Probably not massively important, but you don't check for the
> return value of this call or its counterpart at the end of this
> function.
pthread_* return values where wrong throughout the code. Good that you
pointed at this one. It's all fixed now.
> [...]
>
>> +static void *scrub_one_dev(void *ctx)
>> +{
>> + struct scrub_progress *sp = ctx;
>> + int ret;
>> + struct timeval tv;
>> +
>> + sp->stats.canceled = 0;
>> + sp->stats.duration = 0;
>> + sp->stats.finished = 0;
>> +
>> + ret = ioctl(sp->fd, BTRFS_IOC_SCRUB, &sp->scrub_args);
>> + gettimeofday(&tv, NULL);
>> + sp->ret = ret;
>> + sp->stats.duration = tv.tv_sec - sp->stats.t_start;
>> + sp->stats.canceled = !!ret;
>> + sp->ioctl_errno = errno;
>> + ret = pthread_mutex_lock(&sp->progress_mutex);
>> + if (ret)
>> + return ERR_PTR(-errno);
>> + sp->stats.finished = 1;
>> + ret = pthread_mutex_unlock(&sp->progress_mutex);
>
> If you downgrade .finished to a plain int, rather than a u64, then
> is this locking actually be needed? You have one place where the lock
> is held to write a single value (which is atomic for an int, IIRC),
> and you have another place where you hold the lock to read and compare
> it. I don't see any problem with removing the lock for that.
Conclusion first: I want to stick with the mutex. My reasoning:
- this is by no means time critical code
- the mutexes do the memory barriers required for synchronization
- using int instead of u64 would complicate the kvread macros
Thanks,
-Jan
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
