]>
Commit | Line | Data |
---|---|---|
1da177e4 LT |
1 | |
2 | JFFS2 LOCKING DOCUMENTATION | |
3 | --------------------------- | |
4 | ||
5 | At least theoretically, JFFS2 does not require the Big Kernel Lock | |
6 | (BKL), which was always helpfully obtained for it by Linux 2.4 VFS | |
7 | code. It has its own locking, as described below. | |
8 | ||
9 | This document attempts to describe the existing locking rules for | |
10 | JFFS2. It is not expected to remain perfectly up to date, but ought to | |
11 | be fairly close. | |
12 | ||
13 | ||
14 | alloc_sem | |
15 | --------- | |
16 | ||
ced22070 | 17 | The alloc_sem is a per-filesystem mutex, used primarily to ensure |
1da177e4 LT |
18 | contiguous allocation of space on the medium. It is automatically |
19 | obtained during space allocations (jffs2_reserve_space()) and freed | |
20 | upon write completion (jffs2_complete_reservation()). Note that | |
21 | the garbage collector will obtain this right at the beginning of | |
22 | jffs2_garbage_collect_pass() and release it at the end, thereby | |
23 | preventing any other write activity on the file system during a | |
24 | garbage collect pass. | |
25 | ||
26 | When writing new nodes, the alloc_sem must be held until the new nodes | |
27 | have been properly linked into the data structures for the inode to | |
28 | which they belong. This is for the benefit of NAND flash - adding new | |
29 | nodes to an inode may obsolete old ones, and by holding the alloc_sem | |
30 | until this happens we ensure that any data in the write-buffer at the | |
31 | time this happens are part of the new node, not just something that | |
32 | was written afterwards. Hence, we can ensure the newly-obsoleted nodes | |
33 | don't actually get erased until the write-buffer has been flushed to | |
34 | the medium. | |
35 | ||
36 | With the introduction of NAND flash support and the write-buffer, | |
37 | the alloc_sem is also used to protect the wbuf-related members of the | |
38 | jffs2_sb_info structure. Atomically reading the wbuf_len member to see | |
39 | if the wbuf is currently holding any data is permitted, though. | |
40 | ||
41 | Ordering constraints: See f->sem. | |
42 | ||
43 | ||
ced22070 | 44 | File Mutex f->sem |
1da177e4 LT |
45 | --------------------- |
46 | ||
ced22070 | 47 | This is the JFFS2-internal equivalent of the inode mutex i->i_sem. |
1da177e4 LT |
48 | It protects the contents of the jffs2_inode_info private inode data, |
49 | including the linked list of node fragments (but see the notes below on | |
50 | erase_completion_lock), etc. | |
51 | ||
52 | The reason that the i_sem itself isn't used for this purpose is to | |
53 | avoid deadlocks with garbage collection -- the VFS will lock the i_sem | |
54 | before calling a function which may need to allocate space. The | |
55 | allocation may trigger garbage-collection, which may need to move a | |
56 | node belonging to the inode which was locked in the first place by the | |
57 | VFS. If the garbage collection code were to attempt to lock the i_sem | |
58 | of the inode from which it's garbage-collecting a physical node, this | |
59 | lead to deadlock, unless we played games with unlocking the i_sem | |
60 | before calling the space allocation functions. | |
61 | ||
62 | Instead of playing such games, we just have an extra internal | |
ced22070 | 63 | mutex, which is obtained by the garbage collection code and also |
1da177e4 LT |
64 | by the normal file system code _after_ allocation of space. |
65 | ||
66 | Ordering constraints: | |
67 | ||
68 | 1. Never attempt to allocate space or lock alloc_sem with | |
69 | any f->sem held. | |
ced22070 | 70 | 2. Never attempt to lock two file mutexes in one thread. |
1da177e4 LT |
71 | No ordering rules have been made for doing so. |
72 | ||
73 | ||
74 | erase_completion_lock spinlock | |
75 | ------------------------------ | |
76 | ||
77 | This is used to serialise access to the eraseblock lists, to the | |
78 | per-eraseblock lists of physical jffs2_raw_node_ref structures, and | |
79 | (NB) the per-inode list of physical nodes. The latter is a special | |
80 | case - see below. | |
81 | ||
82 | As the MTD API no longer permits erase-completion callback functions | |
83 | to be called from bottom-half (timer) context (on the basis that nobody | |
84 | ever actually implemented such a thing), it's now sufficient to use | |
85 | a simple spin_lock() rather than spin_lock_bh(). | |
86 | ||
87 | Note that the per-inode list of physical nodes (f->nodes) is a special | |
88 | case. Any changes to _valid_ nodes (i.e. ->flash_offset & 1 == 0) in | |
ced22070 DW |
89 | the list are protected by the file mutex f->sem. But the erase code |
90 | may remove _obsolete_ nodes from the list while holding only the | |
1da177e4 LT |
91 | erase_completion_lock. So you can walk the list only while holding the |
92 | erase_completion_lock, and can drop the lock temporarily mid-walk as | |
93 | long as the pointer you're holding is to a _valid_ node, not an | |
94 | obsolete one. | |
95 | ||
96 | The erase_completion_lock is also used to protect the c->gc_task | |
97 | pointer when the garbage collection thread exits. The code to kill the | |
98 | GC thread locks it, sends the signal, then unlocks it - while the GC | |
99 | thread itself locks it, zeroes c->gc_task, then unlocks on the exit path. | |
100 | ||
101 | ||
102 | inocache_lock spinlock | |
103 | ---------------------- | |
104 | ||
105 | This spinlock protects the hashed list (c->inocache_list) of the | |
106 | in-core jffs2_inode_cache objects (each inode in JFFS2 has the | |
107 | correspondent jffs2_inode_cache object). So, the inocache_lock | |
108 | has to be locked while walking the c->inocache_list hash buckets. | |
109 | ||
7d200960 DW |
110 | This spinlock also covers allocation of new inode numbers, which is |
111 | currently just '++->highest_ino++', but might one day get more complicated | |
112 | if we need to deal with wrapping after 4 milliard inode numbers are used. | |
113 | ||
1da177e4 LT |
114 | Note, the f->sem guarantees that the correspondent jffs2_inode_cache |
115 | will not be removed. So, it is allowed to access it without locking | |
116 | the inocache_lock spinlock. | |
117 | ||
118 | Ordering constraints: | |
119 | ||
120 | If both erase_completion_lock and inocache_lock are needed, the | |
121 | c->erase_completion has to be acquired first. | |
122 | ||
123 | ||
124 | erase_free_sem | |
125 | -------------- | |
126 | ||
ced22070 DW |
127 | This mutex is only used by the erase code which frees obsolete node |
128 | references and the jffs2_garbage_collect_deletion_dirent() function. | |
129 | The latter function on NAND flash must read _obsolete_ nodes to | |
130 | determine whether the 'deletion dirent' under consideration can be | |
1da177e4 LT |
131 | discarded or whether it is still required to show that an inode has |
132 | been unlinked. Because reading from the flash may sleep, the | |
133 | erase_completion_lock cannot be held, so an alternative, more | |
134 | heavyweight lock was required to prevent the erase code from freeing | |
135 | the jffs2_raw_node_ref structures in question while the garbage | |
136 | collection code is looking at them. | |
137 | ||
138 | Suggestions for alternative solutions to this problem would be welcomed. | |
139 | ||
140 | ||
141 | wbuf_sem | |
142 | -------- | |
143 | ||
144 | This read/write semaphore protects against concurrent access to the | |
145 | write-behind buffer ('wbuf') used for flash chips where we must write | |
146 | in blocks. It protects both the contents of the wbuf and the metadata | |
147 | which indicates which flash region (if any) is currently covered by | |
148 | the buffer. | |
149 | ||
150 | Ordering constraints: | |
151 | Lock wbuf_sem last, after the alloc_sem or and f->sem. | |
8b0b339d KK |
152 | |
153 | ||
154 | c->xattr_sem | |
155 | ------------ | |
156 | ||
157 | This read/write semaphore protects against concurrent access to the | |
158 | xattr related objects which include stuff in superblock and ic->xref. | |
159 | In read-only path, write-semaphore is too much exclusion. It's enough | |
160 | by read-semaphore. But you must hold write-semaphore when updating, | |
161 | creating or deleting any xattr related object. | |
162 | ||
163 | Once xattr_sem released, there would be no assurance for the existence | |
164 | of those objects. Thus, a series of processes is often required to retry, | |
165 | when updating such a object is necessary under holding read semaphore. | |
166 | For example, do_jffs2_getxattr() holds read-semaphore to scan xref and | |
167 | xdatum at first. But it retries this process with holding write-semaphore | |
168 | after release read-semaphore, if it's necessary to load name/value pair | |
169 | from medium. | |
170 | ||
171 | Ordering constraints: | |
172 | Lock xattr_sem last, after the alloc_sem. |