[Ocfs2-devel] [RFC] configfs: Pin configfs subsystems separately from new config_items.

[Joel Becker]

On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 01:13:57PM +0200, Louis Rilling wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 01:07:13PM -0700, Joel Becker wrote:
> > > 4/ make_item()/make_group() pins the module of the new item/group if it differs
> > >    from the current one, and at least until drop_item() (must check in-tree
> > >    subsystems, but I suspect that module dependency tracking already does the
> > >    job).
> > 
> > 	This is a silly rule, though.  Why "pin if it is different" when
> > "always pin" is just as effective and much easier to understand?  You
> > never have to ask "but was the item's module pinned?" when tracking a
> > problem.
> 
> Not so silly, if you consider that this relieves in-tree users from having to
> add try_module_get() in their code. Only special users (like me) who create
> items implemented by other modules, without explicitly depending on symbols of
> these modules or keeping references after ->drop_item(), have to deal with
> such module pinning.

	With my rule ("always pin"), single-module users don't have to
try_module_get() at all.  Just like today.  That's kind of my point.

> 	And I think that we can also get rid of the last config_item_put() (or
> put it before client_drop_item()), because after client_drop_item() rmdir() does
> not need the item anymore, and client_drop_item() is supposed to call
> config_item_put() (in parent's drop_item() or directly). IOW, when entering
> rmdir() configfs already holds the item's ref that was given by parent's
> ->make_item(), and rmdir() drops that ref in client_drop_item(). No need to hold
> the extra one grabbed by configfs_get_config_item().

	We could, but it's a much cleaner read to hold a reference for
the duration of the function.  And since we hold a module reference
anyway, I like simpler and clearer.

> > 	In the end, we are holding a reference to the module while we
> > are accessing it.  It's overkill for the common case (single module was
> > safe before when we pinned item->owner, and it is safe if we only
> > pin subsys->owner), but it provides the best proper safety if we allow
> > multi-module subsystems.
> 
> As I said above, the way it is done currently, pinning the new item's module
> does not provide any safety in multi-module subsystems.

	We provide safety for ourselves.  We can't provide safety for
the subsystem - we don't know how it is put together.  Once again, the
module reference is just configfs saying "I know that I have a reference
and that I'm safe to access this."

Joel

-- 

To spot the expert, pick the one who predicts the job will take the
longest and cost the most.

Joel Becker
Principal Software Developer
Oracle
E-mail: joel.becker at oracle.com
Phone: (650) 506-8127