Re: [PATCH v1 07/11] locks: only pull entries off of blocked_listwhen they are really unblocked
From: J. Bruce Fields
Date: Wed Jun 05 2013 - 08:25:24 EST
On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 07:38:22AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Jun 2013 17:58:39 -0400
> "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 11:07:30PM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > > Currently, when there is a lot of lock contention the kernel spends an
> > > inordinate amount of time taking blocked locks off of the global
> > > blocked_list and then putting them right back on again. When all of this
> > > code was protected by a single lock, then it didn't matter much, but now
> > > it means a lot of file_lock_lock thrashing.
> > >
> > > Optimize this a bit by deferring the removal from the blocked_list until
> > > we're either applying or cancelling the lock. By doing this, and using a
> > > lockless list_empty check, we can avoid taking the file_lock_lock in
> > > many cases.
> > >
> > > Because the fl_link check is lockless, we must ensure that only the task
> > > that "owns" the request manipulates the fl_link. Also, with this change,
> > > it's possible that we'll see an entry on the blocked_list that has a
> > > NULL fl_next pointer. In that event, just ignore it and continue walking
> > > the list.
> > OK, that sounds safe as in it shouldn't crash, but does the deadlock
> > detection still work, or can it miss loops?
> > Those locks that are temporarily NULL would previously not have been on
> > the list at all, OK, but... I'm having trouble reasoning about how this
> > works now.
> > Previously a single lock was held interrupted across
> > posix_locks_deadlock and locks_insert_block() which guaranteed we
> > shouldn't be adding a loop, is that still true?
> > --b.
> I had thought it was when I originally looked at this, but now that I
> consider it again I think you may be correct and that there are possible
> races here. Since we might end up reblocking behind a different lock
> without taking the global spinlock we could flip to blocking behind a
> different lock such that a loop is created if you had a complex (>2)
> chain of locks.
> I think I'm going to have to drop this approach and instead make it so
> that the deadlock detection and insertion into the global blocker
> list/hash are atomic.
Right. Once you drop the lock you can no longer be sure that what you
learned about the file-lock graph stays true.
> Ditto for locks_wake_up_blocks on posix locks and
> taking the entries off the list/hash.
Here I'm not sure what you mean.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/