So, do you want we protect the values here with spin_lock and just
read without spin_lock in sysfs read part?
2021년 3월 12일 (금) 오후 11:37, Daeho Jeong <daeh...@gmail.com>님이 작성:
>
> As you can see, if we're doing like the below.
>
> sbi->compr_written_block += blocks;
>
> Let's assume the initial value as 0.
>
> <thread A> <thread B>
> sbi->compr_written_block = 0;
>
> sbi->compr_written_block = 0;
> +blocks(3);
> + blocks(2);
> sbi->compr_written_block = 3;
>
> sbi->compr_written_block = 2;
>
> Finally, we end up with 2, not 5.
>
> As more threads are participating it, we might miss more counting.
>
> 2021년 3월 12일 (금) 오후 11:04, Greg KH <gre...@linuxfoundation.org>님이 작성:
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 10:56:13PM +0900, Daeho Jeong wrote:
> > > Thanks for suggesting me sysfs_emit().
> > >
> > > For atomic values, actually, those are needed for writer part, not reader.
> > >
> > > +#define add_compr_block_stat(inode, blocks) \
> > > + do { \
> > > + struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi = F2FS_I_SB(inode); \
> > > + int diff = F2FS_I(inode)->i_cluster_size - blocks; \
> > > + atomic64_add(blocks, &sbi->compr_written_block); \
> > > + atomic64_add(diff, &sbi->compr_saved_block); \
> > > + } while (0)
> > >
> > > I needed a protection here, because they might be updated in the race
> > > condition.
> >
> > Why? What are you trying to protect from "racing" here?
> >
> > thanks,
> >
> > greg k-h
