Re: [PATCH v2 12/14] locks: give the blocked_hash its own spinlock

[J. Bruce Fields]

On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 07:09:06AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> 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.

Out of curiosity...  In the typical case when adding/removing a lock,
aren't both lists being modified in rapid succession?

I wonder if it would be better to instead stick with one lock and take
care to acquire it only once to cover both manipulations.

--b.

> 
> Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  Documentation/filesystems/Locking |   16 ++++++++--------
>  fs/locks.c                        |   25 +++++++++++++------------
>  2 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/filesystems/Locking b/Documentation/filesystems/Locking
> index ee351ac..8d8d040 100644
> --- a/Documentation/filesystems/Locking
> +++ b/Documentation/filesystems/Locking
> @@ -359,20 +359,20 @@ prototypes:
>  
>  locking rules:
>  
> -			inode->i_lock	file_lock_lock	may block
> -lm_compare_owner:	yes		maybe		no
> -lm_owner_key		yes		yes		no
> -lm_notify:		yes		no		no
> -lm_grant:		no		no		no
> -lm_break:		yes		no		no
> -lm_change		yes		no		no
> +			inode->i_lock	blocked_hash_lock	may block
> +lm_compare_owner:	yes		maybe			no
> +lm_owner_key		yes		yes			no
> +lm_notify:		yes		no			no
> +lm_grant:		no		no			no
> +lm_break:		yes		no			no
> +lm_change		yes		no			no
>  
>  	->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_hash_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.
> diff --git a/fs/locks.c b/fs/locks.c
> index 11e7784..8124fc1 100644
> --- a/fs/locks.c
> +++ b/fs/locks.c
> @@ -162,12 +162,11 @@ int lease_break_time = 45;
>   */
>  #define BLOCKED_HASH_BITS	7
>  
> +static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(blocked_hash_lock);
>  static DEFINE_HASHTABLE(blocked_hash, BLOCKED_HASH_BITS);
>  
> -static HLIST_HEAD(file_lock_list);
> -
> -/* Protects the file_lock_list and the blocked_hash */
>  static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(file_lock_lock);
> +static HLIST_HEAD(file_lock_list);
>  
>  static struct kmem_cache *filelock_cache __read_mostly;
>  
> @@ -505,9 +504,9 @@ __locks_delete_global_blocked(struct file_lock *waiter)
>  static inline void
>  locks_delete_global_blocked(struct file_lock *waiter)
>  {
> -	spin_lock(&file_lock_lock);
> +	spin_lock(&blocked_hash_lock);
>  	__locks_delete_global_blocked(waiter);
> -	spin_unlock(&file_lock_lock);
> +	spin_unlock(&blocked_hash_lock);
>  }
>  
>  static inline void
> @@ -581,14 +580,14 @@ static void locks_wake_up_blocks(struct file_lock *blocker)
>  
>  /*
>   * Wake up processes blocked waiting for blocker. In the FL_POSIX case, we must
> - * also take the global file_lock_lock and dequeue it from the global blocked
> - * list as we wake the processes.
> + * also take the global blocked_hash_lock and dequeue it from the global
> + * blocked list as we wake the processes.
>   *
>   * Must be called with the inode->i_lock of the blocker held!
>   */
>  static void locks_wake_up_posix_blocks(struct file_lock *blocker)
>  {
> -	spin_lock(&file_lock_lock);
> +	spin_lock(&blocked_hash_lock);
>  	while (!list_empty(&blocker->fl_block)) {
>  		struct file_lock *waiter;
>  
> @@ -601,7 +600,7 @@ static void locks_wake_up_posix_blocks(struct file_lock *blocker)
>  		else
>  			wake_up(&waiter->fl_wait);
>  	}
> -	spin_unlock(&file_lock_lock);
> +	spin_unlock(&blocked_hash_lock);
>  }
>  /* Insert file lock fl into an inode's lock list at the position indicated
>   * by pos. At the same time add the lock to the global file lock list.
> @@ -754,7 +753,7 @@ 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_hash_lock held! */
>  static int posix_locks_deadlock(struct file_lock *caller_fl,
>  				struct file_lock *block_fl)
>  {
> @@ -898,13 +897,13 @@ static int __posix_lock_file(struct inode *inode, struct file_lock *request, str
>  			if (!(request->fl_flags & FL_SLEEP))
>  				goto out;
>  			error = -EDEADLK;
> -			spin_lock(&file_lock_lock);
> +			spin_lock(&blocked_hash_lock);
>  			if (likely(!posix_locks_deadlock(request, fl))) {
>  				error = FILE_LOCK_DEFERRED;
>  				locks_insert_block(fl, request);
>  				locks_insert_global_blocked(request);
>  			}
> -			spin_unlock(&file_lock_lock);
> +			spin_unlock(&blocked_hash_lock);
>  			goto out;
>    		}
>    	}
> @@ -2309,10 +2308,12 @@ static int locks_show(struct seq_file *f, void *v)
>  
>  	lock_get_status(f, fl, *((loff_t *)f->private), "");
>  
> +	spin_lock(&blocked_hash_lock);
>  	hash_for_each(blocked_hash, bkt, bfl, fl_link) {
>  		if (bfl->fl_next == fl)
>  			lock_get_status(f, bfl, *((loff_t *)f->private), " ->");
>  	}
> +	spin_unlock(&blocked_hash_lock);
>  
>  	return 0;
>  }
> -- 
> 1.7.1
> 
--
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/