LKML Archive on lore.kernel.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.com>
To: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>,
	Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
Cc: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org>,
	Martin Wilck <mwilck@suse.de>,
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
	Frank Filz <ffilzlnx@mindspring.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH 4/9] fs/locks: allow a lock request to block other requests.
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2018 09:43:54 +1100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <154033463449.29542.10275772676578015580.stgit@noble> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <154033435272.29542.13985568983074440924.stgit@noble>

Currently, a lock can block pending requests, but all pending
requests are equal.  If lots of pending requests are
mutually exclusive, this means they will all be woken up
and all but one will fail.  This can hurt performance.

So we will allow pending requests to block other requests.
Only the first request will be woken, and it will wake the others.

This patch doesn't implement this fully, but prepares the way.

- It acknowledges that a request might be blocking other requests,
  and when the request is converted to a lock, those blocked
  requests are moved across.
- When a request is requeued or discarded, all blocked requests are
  woken.
- When deadlock-detection looks for the lock which blocks a
  given request, we follow the chain of ->fl_blocker all
  the way to the top.

Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.com>
---
 fs/locks.c |   36 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
 1 file changed, 30 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/fs/locks.c b/fs/locks.c
index b8f33792a0a6..d362e84a7176 100644
--- a/fs/locks.c
+++ b/fs/locks.c
@@ -402,6 +402,17 @@ void locks_copy_lock(struct file_lock *new, struct file_lock *fl)
 
 EXPORT_SYMBOL(locks_copy_lock);
 
+static void locks_move_blocks(struct file_lock *new, struct file_lock *fl)
+{
+	struct file_lock *f;
+
+	spin_lock(&blocked_lock_lock);
+	list_splice_init(&fl->fl_blocked, &new->fl_blocked);
+	list_for_each_entry(f, &fl->fl_blocked, fl_block)
+		f->fl_blocker = new;
+	spin_unlock(&blocked_lock_lock);
+}
+
 static inline int flock_translate_cmd(int cmd) {
 	if (cmd & LOCK_MAND)
 		return cmd & (LOCK_MAND | LOCK_RW);
@@ -690,6 +701,7 @@ static void __locks_wake_up_blocks(struct file_lock *blocker)
 static void locks_delete_block(struct file_lock *waiter)
 {
 	spin_lock(&blocked_lock_lock);
+	__locks_wake_up_blocks(waiter);
 	__locks_delete_block(waiter);
 	spin_unlock(&blocked_lock_lock);
 }
@@ -712,6 +724,12 @@ static void __locks_insert_block(struct file_lock *blocker,
 	list_add_tail(&waiter->fl_block, &blocker->fl_blocked);
 	if (IS_POSIX(blocker) && !IS_OFDLCK(blocker))
 		locks_insert_global_blocked(waiter);
+
+	/* The requests in waiter->fl_blocked are known to conflict with
+	 * waiter, but might not conflict with blocker, or the requests
+	 * and lock which block it.  So they all need to be woken.
+	 */
+	__locks_wake_up_blocks(waiter);
 }
 
 /* Must be called with flc_lock held. */
@@ -884,8 +902,11 @@ static struct file_lock *what_owner_is_waiting_for(struct file_lock *block_fl)
 	struct file_lock *fl;
 
 	hash_for_each_possible(blocked_hash, fl, fl_link, posix_owner_key(block_fl)) {
-		if (posix_same_owner(fl, block_fl))
-			return fl->fl_blocker;
+		if (posix_same_owner(fl, block_fl)) {
+			while (fl->fl_blocker)
+				fl = fl->fl_blocker;
+			return fl;
+		}
 	}
 	return NULL;
 }
@@ -978,6 +999,7 @@ static int flock_lock_inode(struct inode *inode, struct file_lock *request)
 	if (request->fl_flags & FL_ACCESS)
 		goto out;
 	locks_copy_lock(new_fl, request);
+	locks_move_blocks(new_fl, request);
 	locks_insert_lock_ctx(new_fl, &ctx->flc_flock);
 	new_fl = NULL;
 	error = 0;
@@ -1171,6 +1193,7 @@ static int posix_lock_inode(struct inode *inode, struct file_lock *request,
 			goto out;
 		}
 		locks_copy_lock(new_fl, request);
+		locks_move_blocks(new_fl, request);
 		locks_insert_lock_ctx(new_fl, &fl->fl_list);
 		fl = new_fl;
 		new_fl = NULL;
@@ -2585,13 +2608,14 @@ void locks_remove_file(struct file *filp)
 int
 posix_unblock_lock(struct file_lock *waiter)
 {
-	int status = 0;
+	int status = -ENOENT;
 
 	spin_lock(&blocked_lock_lock);
-	if (waiter->fl_blocker)
+	if (waiter->fl_blocker) {
+		__locks_wake_up_blocks(waiter);
 		__locks_delete_block(waiter);
-	else
-		status = -ENOENT;
+		status = 0;
+	}
 	spin_unlock(&blocked_lock_lock);
 	return status;
 }



  parent reply	other threads:[~2018-10-23 22:46 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-10-23 22:43 [PATCH 0/9 v3] locks: avoid thundering-herd wake-ups NeilBrown
2018-10-23 22:43 ` [PATCH 8/9] locks: merge posix_unblock_lock() and locks_delete_block() NeilBrown
2018-10-23 22:43 ` [PATCH 6/9] fs/locks: change all *_conflict() functions to return bool NeilBrown
2018-10-23 22:43 ` [PATCH 3/9] NFS: use locks_copy_lock() to copy locks NeilBrown
2018-10-23 22:43 ` [PATCH 2/9] fs/locks: split out __locks_wake_up_blocks() NeilBrown
2018-10-23 22:43 ` [PATCH 9/9] VFS: locks: remove unnecessary white space NeilBrown
2018-10-23 22:43 ` [PATCH 7/9] fs/locks: create a tree of dependent requests NeilBrown
2018-10-23 22:43 ` [PATCH 1/9] fs/locks: rename some lists and pointers NeilBrown
2018-10-23 22:43 ` NeilBrown [this message]
2018-10-23 22:43 ` [PATCH 5/9] fs/locks: always delete_block after waiting NeilBrown
2018-10-25 16:04 ` [PATCH 0/9 v3] locks: avoid thundering-herd wake-ups J. Bruce Fields
2018-10-25 19:27   ` Martin Wilck
2018-10-26 13:46 ` Jeff Layton
2018-10-28 22:43   ` NeilBrown
2018-10-29  1:56   ` NeilBrown
2018-10-29 12:38     ` Jeff Layton
2018-10-30 12:04       ` Jeff Layton
2018-10-30 17:56         ` Jeff Layton

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=154033463449.29542.10275772676578015580.stgit@noble \
    --to=neilb@suse.com \
    --cc=bfields@fieldses.org \
    --cc=ffilzlnx@mindspring.com \
    --cc=jlayton@kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mwilck@suse.de \
    --cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
    --subject='Re: [PATCH 4/9] fs/locks: allow a lock request to block other requests.' \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).