[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130613194545.GC19218@fieldses.org>
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 15:45:46 -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 v2 06/14] locks: don't walk inode->i_flock list in
locks_show
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 07:09:00AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> When we convert over to using the i_lock to protect the i_flock list,
> that will introduce a potential lock inversion problem in locks_show.
> When we want to walk the i_flock list, we'll need to take the i_lock.
>
> Rather than do that, just walk the global blocked_locks list and print
> out any that are blocked on the given lock.
I'm OK with this as obviously /proc/locks shouldn't be the common case,
but it still bugs me a bit that we're suddenly making it something like
O(number of held locks * number of waiters)
where it used to be
O(number of held lock + number of waiters)
I wonder if there's any solution that's just as easy and avoids scanning
the blocked list each time.
--b.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>
> ---
> fs/locks.c | 6 ++++--
> 1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/locks.c b/fs/locks.c
> index e451d18..3fd27f0 100644
> --- a/fs/locks.c
> +++ b/fs/locks.c
> @@ -2249,8 +2249,10 @@ static int locks_show(struct seq_file *f, void *v)
>
> lock_get_status(f, fl, *((loff_t *)f->private), "");
>
> - list_for_each_entry(bfl, &fl->fl_block, fl_block)
> - lock_get_status(f, bfl, *((loff_t *)f->private), " ->");
> + list_for_each_entry(bfl, &blocked_list, fl_link) {
> + if (bfl->fl_next == fl)
> + lock_get_status(f, bfl, *((loff_t *)f->private), " ->");
> + }
>
> 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