forked from luck/tmp_suning_uos_patched
locks: give the blocked_hash its own spinlock
There's no reason we have to protect the blocked_hash and file_lock_list with the same spinlock. With the tests I have, breaking it in two gives a barely measurable performance benefit, but it seems reasonable to make this locking as granular as possible. Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
This commit is contained in:
parent
3999e49364
commit
7b2296afb3
|
@ -357,20 +357,20 @@ prototypes:
|
|||
|
||||
locking rules:
|
||||
|
||||
inode->i_lock file_lock_lock may block
|
||||
lm_compare_owner: yes[1] maybe no
|
||||
lm_owner_key yes[1] yes no
|
||||
lm_notify: yes yes no
|
||||
lm_grant: no no no
|
||||
lm_break: yes no no
|
||||
lm_change yes no no
|
||||
inode->i_lock blocked_lock_lock may block
|
||||
lm_compare_owner: yes[1] maybe no
|
||||
lm_owner_key yes[1] yes no
|
||||
lm_notify: yes yes no
|
||||
lm_grant: no no no
|
||||
lm_break: yes no no
|
||||
lm_change yes no no
|
||||
|
||||
[1]: ->lm_compare_owner and ->lm_owner_key are generally called with
|
||||
*an* inode->i_lock held. It may not be the i_lock of the inode
|
||||
associated with either file_lock argument! This is the case with deadlock
|
||||
detection, since the code has to chase down the owners of locks that may
|
||||
be entirely unrelated to the one on which the lock is being acquired.
|
||||
For deadlock detection however, the file_lock_lock is also held. The
|
||||
For deadlock detection however, the blocked_lock_lock is also held. The
|
||||
fact that these locks are held ensures that the file_locks do not
|
||||
disappear out from under you while doing the comparison or generating an
|
||||
owner key.
|
||||
|
|
41
fs/locks.c
41
fs/locks.c
|
@ -159,10 +159,11 @@ int lease_break_time = 45;
|
|||
* by the file_lock_lock.
|
||||
*/
|
||||
static HLIST_HEAD(file_lock_list);
|
||||
static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(file_lock_lock);
|
||||
|
||||
/*
|
||||
* The blocked_hash is used to find POSIX lock loops for deadlock detection.
|
||||
* It is protected by file_lock_lock.
|
||||
* It is protected by blocked_lock_lock.
|
||||
*
|
||||
* We hash locks by lockowner in order to optimize searching for the lock a
|
||||
* particular lockowner is waiting on.
|
||||
|
@ -175,8 +176,8 @@ static HLIST_HEAD(file_lock_list);
|
|||
static DEFINE_HASHTABLE(blocked_hash, BLOCKED_HASH_BITS);
|
||||
|
||||
/*
|
||||
* This lock protects the blocked_hash and the file_lock_list. Generally, if
|
||||
* you're accessing one of those lists, you want to be holding this lock.
|
||||
* This lock protects the blocked_hash. Generally, if you're accessing it, you
|
||||
* want to be holding this lock.
|
||||
*
|
||||
* In addition, it also protects the fl->fl_block list, and the fl->fl_next
|
||||
* pointer for file_lock structures that are acting as lock requests (in
|
||||
|
@ -191,7 +192,7 @@ static DEFINE_HASHTABLE(blocked_hash, BLOCKED_HASH_BITS);
|
|||
* both the i_lock and the blocked_lock_lock (acquired in that order). Deleting
|
||||
* an entry from the list however only requires the file_lock_lock.
|
||||
*/
|
||||
static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(file_lock_lock);
|
||||
static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(blocked_lock_lock);
|
||||
|
||||
static struct kmem_cache *filelock_cache __read_mostly;
|
||||
|
||||
|
@ -544,7 +545,7 @@ locks_delete_global_blocked(struct file_lock *waiter)
|
|||
/* Remove waiter from blocker's block list.
|
||||
* When blocker ends up pointing to itself then the list is empty.
|
||||
*
|
||||
* Must be called with file_lock_lock held.
|
||||
* Must be called with blocked_lock_lock held.
|
||||
*/
|
||||
static void __locks_delete_block(struct file_lock *waiter)
|
||||
{
|
||||
|
@ -555,9 +556,9 @@ static void __locks_delete_block(struct file_lock *waiter)
|
|||
|
||||
static void locks_delete_block(struct file_lock *waiter)
|
||||
{
|
||||
spin_lock(&file_lock_lock);
|
||||
spin_lock(&blocked_lock_lock);
|
||||
__locks_delete_block(waiter);
|
||||
spin_unlock(&file_lock_lock);
|
||||
spin_unlock(&blocked_lock_lock);
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
/* Insert waiter into blocker's block list.
|
||||
|
@ -565,9 +566,9 @@ static void locks_delete_block(struct file_lock *waiter)
|
|||
* the order they blocked. The documentation doesn't require this but
|
||||
* it seems like the reasonable thing to do.
|
||||
*
|
||||
* Must be called with both the i_lock and file_lock_lock held. The fl_block
|
||||
* Must be called with both the i_lock and blocked_lock_lock held. The fl_block
|
||||
* list itself is protected by the file_lock_list, but by ensuring that the
|
||||
* i_lock is also held on insertions we can avoid taking the file_lock_lock
|
||||
* i_lock is also held on insertions we can avoid taking the blocked_lock_lock
|
||||
* in some cases when we see that the fl_block list is empty.
|
||||
*/
|
||||
static void __locks_insert_block(struct file_lock *blocker,
|
||||
|
@ -584,9 +585,9 @@ static void __locks_insert_block(struct file_lock *blocker,
|
|||
static void locks_insert_block(struct file_lock *blocker,
|
||||
struct file_lock *waiter)
|
||||
{
|
||||
spin_lock(&file_lock_lock);
|
||||
spin_lock(&blocked_lock_lock);
|
||||
__locks_insert_block(blocker, waiter);
|
||||
spin_unlock(&file_lock_lock);
|
||||
spin_unlock(&blocked_lock_lock);
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
/*
|
||||
|
@ -601,12 +602,12 @@ static void locks_wake_up_blocks(struct file_lock *blocker)
|
|||
* blocked requests are only added to the list under the i_lock, and
|
||||
* the i_lock is always held here. Note that removal from the fl_block
|
||||
* list does not require the i_lock, so we must recheck list_empty()
|
||||
* after acquiring the file_lock_lock.
|
||||
* after acquiring the blocked_lock_lock.
|
||||
*/
|
||||
if (list_empty(&blocker->fl_block))
|
||||
return;
|
||||
|
||||
spin_lock(&file_lock_lock);
|
||||
spin_lock(&blocked_lock_lock);
|
||||
while (!list_empty(&blocker->fl_block)) {
|
||||
struct file_lock *waiter;
|
||||
|
||||
|
@ -618,7 +619,7 @@ static void locks_wake_up_blocks(struct file_lock *blocker)
|
|||
else
|
||||
wake_up(&waiter->fl_wait);
|
||||
}
|
||||
spin_unlock(&file_lock_lock);
|
||||
spin_unlock(&blocked_lock_lock);
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
/* Insert file lock fl into an inode's lock list at the position indicated
|
||||
|
@ -772,7 +773,7 @@ static struct file_lock *what_owner_is_waiting_for(struct file_lock *block_fl)
|
|||
return NULL;
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
/* Must be called with the file_lock_lock held! */
|
||||
/* Must be called with the blocked_lock_lock held! */
|
||||
static int posix_locks_deadlock(struct file_lock *caller_fl,
|
||||
struct file_lock *block_fl)
|
||||
{
|
||||
|
@ -920,12 +921,12 @@ static int __posix_lock_file(struct inode *inode, struct file_lock *request, str
|
|||
* locks list must be done while holding the same lock!
|
||||
*/
|
||||
error = -EDEADLK;
|
||||
spin_lock(&file_lock_lock);
|
||||
spin_lock(&blocked_lock_lock);
|
||||
if (likely(!posix_locks_deadlock(request, fl))) {
|
||||
error = FILE_LOCK_DEFERRED;
|
||||
__locks_insert_block(fl, request);
|
||||
}
|
||||
spin_unlock(&file_lock_lock);
|
||||
spin_unlock(&blocked_lock_lock);
|
||||
goto out;
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
@ -2212,12 +2213,12 @@ posix_unblock_lock(struct file_lock *waiter)
|
|||
{
|
||||
int status = 0;
|
||||
|
||||
spin_lock(&file_lock_lock);
|
||||
spin_lock(&blocked_lock_lock);
|
||||
if (waiter->fl_next)
|
||||
__locks_delete_block(waiter);
|
||||
else
|
||||
status = -ENOENT;
|
||||
spin_unlock(&file_lock_lock);
|
||||
spin_unlock(&blocked_lock_lock);
|
||||
return status;
|
||||
}
|
||||
EXPORT_SYMBOL(posix_unblock_lock);
|
||||
|
@ -2332,6 +2333,7 @@ static void *locks_start(struct seq_file *f, loff_t *pos)
|
|||
loff_t *p = f->private;
|
||||
|
||||
spin_lock(&file_lock_lock);
|
||||
spin_lock(&blocked_lock_lock);
|
||||
*p = (*pos + 1);
|
||||
return seq_hlist_start(&file_lock_list, *pos);
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
@ -2345,6 +2347,7 @@ static void *locks_next(struct seq_file *f, void *v, loff_t *pos)
|
|||
|
||||
static void locks_stop(struct seq_file *f, void *v)
|
||||
{
|
||||
spin_unlock(&blocked_lock_lock);
|
||||
spin_unlock(&file_lock_lock);
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user