| 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
| ||
|
Message-Id: <1370948948-31784-13-git-send-email-jlayton@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 07:09:06 -0400
From: Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>
To: viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, matthew@....cx, bfields@...ldses.org
Cc: 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: [PATCH v2 12/14] 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@...hat.com>
---
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@...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