| Message ID | 20191115205543.1816-2-vgoyal@redhat.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | virtiofsd, vhost-user-fs: Add support for notification queue | expand |
On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 03:55:40PM -0500, Vivek Goyal wrote: > diff --git a/contrib/virtiofsd/passthrough_ll.c b/contrib/virtiofsd/passthrough_ll.c > index bc214df0c7..028e7da273 100644 > --- a/contrib/virtiofsd/passthrough_ll.c > +++ b/contrib/virtiofsd/passthrough_ll.c > @@ -936,6 +936,14 @@ static void put_shared(struct lo_data *lo, struct lo_inode *inode) > } > } > > +static void release_plock(gpointer data) The name posix_locks_value_destroy() would be clearer because it matches g_hash_table_new_full() terminology and the function cannot be confused with a lock acquire/release operation. This patch conflicts with the cleanups that are currently being made to virtiofsd: https://github.com/stefanha/qemu/commit/1e493175feca58a81a2d0cbdac93b92e5425d850#diff-ca2dea995d1e6cdb95c8a47c7cca51ceR773 Stefan
On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 10:07:13AM +0000, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: > On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 03:55:40PM -0500, Vivek Goyal wrote: > > diff --git a/contrib/virtiofsd/passthrough_ll.c b/contrib/virtiofsd/passthrough_ll.c > > index bc214df0c7..028e7da273 100644 > > --- a/contrib/virtiofsd/passthrough_ll.c > > +++ b/contrib/virtiofsd/passthrough_ll.c > > @@ -936,6 +936,14 @@ static void put_shared(struct lo_data *lo, struct lo_inode *inode) > > } > > } > > > > +static void release_plock(gpointer data) > > The name posix_locks_value_destroy() would be clearer because it matches > g_hash_table_new_full() terminology and the function cannot be confused > with a lock acquire/release operation. Ok, will use this name. > > This patch conflicts with the cleanups that are currently being made to > virtiofsd: > https://github.com/stefanha/qemu/commit/1e493175feca58a81a2d0cbdac93b92e5425d850#diff-ca2dea995d1e6cdb95c8a47c7cca51ceR773 Yes it will. I see you are removing element from hash table on lo_flush(). This works fine today but with waiting locks, we drop the inode->plock_mutex lock and then wait for the lock and expect "lo_inode_plock" to not go away. So I don't think you can remove the element from hash table upon lo_flush(). May be we can refcount lo_inode_plock structure and first release all the locks using setlk(UNLCK) and then drop the reference. If this is last refernce, it will be freed. And waiting lock code, will obtain a refernce under inode->posix_locks and then wait for lock outside the lock. IOW, I will say don't do this optimization of lookup + remove because it will not work with blocking locks. Thanks Vivek
diff --git a/contrib/virtiofsd/passthrough_ll.c b/contrib/virtiofsd/passthrough_ll.c index bc214df0c7..028e7da273 100644 --- a/contrib/virtiofsd/passthrough_ll.c +++ b/contrib/virtiofsd/passthrough_ll.c @@ -936,6 +936,14 @@ static void put_shared(struct lo_data *lo, struct lo_inode *inode) } } +static void release_plock(gpointer data) +{ + struct lo_inode_plock *plock = data; + + close(plock->fd); + free(plock); +} + /* Increments nlookup and caller must release refcount using * lo_inode_put(&parent). */ @@ -994,7 +1002,8 @@ static int lo_do_lookup(fuse_req_t req, fuse_ino_t parent, const char *name, inode->key.ino = e->attr.st_ino; inode->key.dev = e->attr.st_dev; pthread_mutex_init(&inode->plock_mutex, NULL); - inode->posix_locks = g_hash_table_new(g_direct_hash, g_direct_equal); + inode->posix_locks = g_hash_table_new_full(g_direct_hash, + g_direct_equal, NULL, release_plock); get_shared(lo, inode); @@ -1436,9 +1445,6 @@ static void unref_inode(struct lo_data *lo, struct lo_inode *inode, uint64_t n) if (!inode->nlookup) { lo_map_remove(&lo->ino_map, inode->fuse_ino); g_hash_table_remove(lo->inodes, &inode->key); - if (g_hash_table_size(inode->posix_locks)) { - fuse_log(FUSE_LOG_WARNING, "Hash table is not empty\n"); - } g_hash_table_destroy(inode->posix_locks); pthread_mutex_destroy(&inode->plock_mutex); @@ -1868,6 +1874,7 @@ static struct lo_inode_plock *lookup_create_plock_ctx(struct lo_data *lo, plock->fd = fd; g_hash_table_insert(inode->posix_locks, GUINT_TO_POINTER(plock->lock_owner), plock); + fuse_log(FUSE_LOG_DEBUG, "lookup_create_plock_ctx(): Inserted element in posix_locks hash table with value pointer %p\n", plock); return plock; } @@ -2046,6 +2053,7 @@ static void lo_flush(fuse_req_t req, fuse_ino_t ino, struct fuse_file_info *fi) (void) ino; struct lo_inode *inode; struct lo_inode_plock *plock; + struct flock flock; inode = lo_inode(req, ino); if (!inode) { @@ -2058,14 +2066,16 @@ static void lo_flush(fuse_req_t req, fuse_ino_t ino, struct fuse_file_info *fi) plock = g_hash_table_lookup(inode->posix_locks, GUINT_TO_POINTER(fi->lock_owner)); if (plock) { - g_hash_table_remove(inode->posix_locks, - GUINT_TO_POINTER(fi->lock_owner)); /* - * We had used open() for locks and had only one fd. So - * closing this fd should release all OFD locks. + * An fd is being closed. For posix locks, this means + * drop all the associated locks. */ - close(plock->fd); - free(plock); + memset(&flock, 0, sizeof(struct flock)); + flock.l_type = F_UNLCK; + flock.l_whence = SEEK_SET; + /* Unlock whole file */ + flock.l_start = flock.l_len = 0; + fcntl(plock->fd, F_SETLK, &flock); } pthread_mutex_unlock(&inode->plock_mutex);
We are emulating posix locks for guest using open file description locks in virtiofsd. When any of the fd is closed in guest, we find associated OFD lock fd (if there is one) and close it to release all the locks. Assumption here is that there is no other thread using lo_inode_plock structure or plock->fd, hence it is safe to do so. But now we are about to introduce blocking variant of locks (SETLKW), and that means we might be waiting to a lock to be available and using plock->fd. And that means there are still users of plock structure. So release locks using fcntl(SETLK, F_UNLCK) instead and plock will be freed later. Signed-off-by: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com> --- contrib/virtiofsd/passthrough_ll.c | 30 ++++++++++++++++++++---------- 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)