Re: [PATCH v10 13/17] fs/resctrl: Call architecture hooks for every mount/unmount

On Mon, Aug 17, 2026 at 06:02:31PM -0700, Reinette Chatre wrote:
> Hi Tony,
> 
> On 7/29/26 10:27 AM, Tony Luck wrote:
> >  static int rdt_get_tree(struct fs_context *fc)
> > @@ -3175,9 +3176,11 @@ static int rdt_get_tree(struct fs_context *fc)
> >  	struct kernfs_node *rdt_root_kn;
> >  	struct rdt_l3_mon_domain *dom;
> >  	struct rdt_resource *r;
> > +	bool cleanup = true;
> >  	int ret;
> >  
> > -	DO_ONCE_SLEEPABLE(resctrl_arch_pre_mount);
> > +	if (resctrl_arch_pre_mount() == -EBUSY)
> > +		return -EBUSY;
> >  
> This does not look right. Are you intending to add new meanings to EBUSY returned
> by resctrl so that user space now need to choose between "resctrl fs is already mounted"
> and "the underlying architecture is busy with something else"? Based on the implementation
> the architecture could now also return EBUSY when resctrl fs is mounted, but what prevents
> an architecture from returning EBUSY in some other scenario? This error code to user space
> does not seem like a responsibility that the architecture code needs to have.

I've been struggling with how to handle races between multiple mount/unmount
operations when the resctrl_arch_pre_mount() and resctrl_arch_unmount()
calls are not protected by any locks.

As you have seen, I have some (poorly documented) locking at the architecture
level that attempts to solve this by keeping its own idea of the mount status
of resctrl.

A call to resctrl_arch_pre_mount() when the filesystem is not mounted
will do AET enumeration, and if that succeeds create the domains. A nested
call does not need to do anything. But when I had that simply return, that
opened a race against an unmount request.

If the unmount wins the race to acquire rdtgroup_mutex, then the file
system is unmounted. At the end of the unmount the mutex is released and
resctrl_arch_unmount() called. This will execute in parallel with that mount
request, so various bad things may happen as the mount proceeds while AET
is being torn down.

My solution is to have architecture return status to let filessytem code
know that it did nothing because the file system was already mounted. I
think that filesystem code should just return at that point.

Is there a better way to code this? Or is the problem that I didn't describe
the race, and thus the need for architecture code to tell file system code
not to proceed with the mount?

> 
> Reinette

-Tony