| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2013 17:58:39 -0400
From: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>
To: Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>
Cc: viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, matthew@....cx, dhowells@...hat.com,
sage@...tank.com, smfrench@...il.com, swhiteho@...hat.com,
Trond.Myklebust@...app.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-afs@...ts.infradead.org,
ceph-devel@...r.kernel.org, linux-cifs@...r.kernel.org,
samba-technical@...ts.samba.org, cluster-devel@...hat.com,
linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
piastryyy@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 07/11] locks: only pull entries off of blocked_list
when they are really unblocked
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.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>
> ---
> fs/locks.c | 29 +++++++++++++++++++++++------
> 1 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/locks.c b/fs/locks.c
> index 055c06c..fc35b9e 100644
> --- a/fs/locks.c
> +++ b/fs/locks.c
> @@ -520,7 +520,6 @@ locks_delete_global_locks(struct file_lock *waiter)
> static void __locks_delete_block(struct file_lock *waiter)
> {
> list_del_init(&waiter->fl_block);
> - locks_delete_global_blocked(waiter);
> waiter->fl_next = NULL;
> }
>
> @@ -704,13 +703,16 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(posix_test_lock);
> /* Find a lock that the owner of the given block_fl is blocking on. */
> static struct file_lock *what_owner_is_waiting_for(struct file_lock *block_fl)
> {
> - struct file_lock *fl;
> + struct file_lock *fl, *ret = NULL;
>
> list_for_each_entry(fl, &blocked_list, fl_link) {
> - if (posix_same_owner(fl, block_fl))
> - return fl->fl_next;
> + if (posix_same_owner(fl, block_fl)) {
> + ret = fl->fl_next;
> + if (likely(ret))
> + break;
> + }
> }
> - return NULL;
> + return ret;
> }
>
> static int posix_locks_deadlock(struct file_lock *caller_fl,
> @@ -865,7 +867,8 @@ static int __posix_lock_file(struct inode *inode, struct file_lock *request, str
> goto out;
> error = FILE_LOCK_DEFERRED;
> locks_insert_block(fl, request);
> - locks_insert_global_blocked(request);
> + if (list_empty(&request->fl_link))
> + locks_insert_global_blocked(request);
> goto out;
> }
> }
> @@ -876,6 +879,16 @@ static int __posix_lock_file(struct inode *inode, struct file_lock *request, str
> goto out;
>
> /*
> + * Now that we know the request is no longer blocked, we can take it
> + * off the global list. Some callers send down partially initialized
> + * requests, so we only do this if FL_SLEEP is set. Also, avoid taking
> + * the lock if the list is empty, as that indicates a request that
> + * never blocked.
> + */
> + if ((request->fl_flags & FL_SLEEP) && !list_empty(&request->fl_link))
> + locks_delete_global_blocked(request);
> +
> + /*
> * Find the first old lock with the same owner as the new lock.
> */
>
> @@ -1069,6 +1082,7 @@ int posix_lock_file_wait(struct file *filp, struct file_lock *fl)
> continue;
>
> locks_delete_block(fl);
> + locks_delete_global_blocked(fl);
> break;
> }
> return error;
> @@ -1147,6 +1161,7 @@ int locks_mandatory_area(int read_write, struct inode *inode,
> }
>
> locks_delete_block(&fl);
> + locks_delete_global_blocked(&fl);
> break;
> }
>
> @@ -1859,6 +1874,7 @@ static int do_lock_file_wait(struct file *filp, unsigned int cmd,
> continue;
>
> locks_delete_block(fl);
> + locks_delete_global_blocked(fl);
> break;
> }
>
> @@ -2160,6 +2176,7 @@ posix_unblock_lock(struct file *filp, struct file_lock *waiter)
> else
> status = -ENOENT;
> spin_unlock(&inode->i_lock);
> + locks_delete_global_blocked(waiter);
> return status;
> }
>
> --
> 1.7.1
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists