Message-ID: <20150227103014.28defa0b@tlielax.poochiereds.net>
Date:	Fri, 27 Feb 2015 10:30:14 -0500
From:	Jeff Layton <jlayton@...chiereds.net>
To:	Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@...-carit.de>
Cc:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, John Kacur <jkacur@...hat.com>,
	Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC v1 0/5] fs/locks: Use plain percpu spinlocks instead of
 lglock to protect file_lock

On Fri, 27 Feb 2015 16:01:30 +0100
Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@...-carit.de> wrote:

> Sorry for the late response. Got dragged away.
> 
> On 02/24/2015 10:06 PM, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > On Tue, 24 Feb 2015 16:58:26 +0100
> > Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@...-carit.de> wrote:
> > 
> >> On 02/20/2015 05:05 PM, Andi Kleen wrote:
> >>> Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@...-carit.de> writes:
> >>>>
> >>>> I am looking at how to get rid of lglock. Reason being -rt is not too
> >>>> happy with that lock, especially that it uses arch_spinlock_t and
> >>>
> >>> AFAIK it could just use normal spinlock. Have you tried that?
> >>
> >> I have tried it. At least fs/locks.c didn't blow up. The benchmark
> >> results (lockperf) indicated that using normal spinlocks is even
> >> slightly faster. Simply converting felt like cheating. It might be
> >> necessary for the other user (kernel/stop_machine.c). Currently it looks
> >> like there is some additional benefit getting lglock away in fs/locks.c.
> >>
> > 
> > What would that benefit be?
> > 
> > lglocks are basically percpu spinlocks. Fixing some underlying
> > infrastructure that provides that seems like it might be a better
> > approach than declaring them "manually" and avoiding them altogether.
> > 
> > Note that you can still do basically what you're proposing here with
> > lglocks as well. Avoid using lg_global_* and just lock each one in
> > turn.
> 
> Yes, that was I was referring to as benefit. My main point is that there
> are only lg_local_* calls we could as well use normal spinlocks. No need
> to fancy.
> 

Sure, but the lg_lock wrappers are a nice abstraction for this. I don't
think that we gain much by eliminating them. Changing the lglock code
to use normal spinlocks would also have the benefit of fixing up the
other user of that code.

> > That said, now that I've thought about this, I'm not sure that's really
> > something we want to do when accessing /proc/locks. If you lock each
> > one in turn, then you aren't freezing the state of the file_lock_list
> > percpu lists. Won't that mean that you aren't necessarily getting a
> > consistent view of the locks on those lists when you cat /proc/locks?
> 
> Maybe I am overlooking something here but I don't see a consistency
> problem. We list a blocker and all its waiter in a go since only the
> blocker is added to flock_lock_list and the waiters are added blocker's
> fl_block list.
> 

Other locking activity could be happening at the same time. For
instance, between when you drop one CPU's spinlock and pick up another,
the lock that you just printed could be acquired by another thread on
another CPU and then you go print it again. Now you're showing
conflicting locks in /proc/locks output.

Is that a real problem? I've no idea -- we don't have a lot of guidance
for what sort of atomicity /proc/locks needs, but that seems wrong to
me.

I also just don't see much benefit in optimizing /proc/locks access.
That's only done very rarely under most workloads. Locking all of the
spinlocks when you want to read from it sounds 100% fine to me and that
may help prevent these sorts of consistency problems. It also has the
benefit of keeping the /proc/locks seqfile code simpler.

> > I think having a consistent view there might trump any benefit to
> > performance. Reading /proc/locks is a *very* rare activity in the big
> > scheme of things.
> 
> I agree, but I hope that I got it right with my consistency argument
> than there shouldn't be a problem.
> 
> > I do however like the idea of moving more to be protected by the
> > lglocks, and minimizing usage of the blocked_lock_lock.
> 
> Good to hear. I am trying to write a new test (a variation of the
> dinning philosophers 'problem') case which benchmarks blocked_lock_lock
> after the re-factoring.
> 

Sounds good. I may go ahead and pick up the first couple of patches and
queue them for v4.1 since they seem like reasonable cleanups. I'll let
you know once I've done that.

-- 
Jeff Layton <jlayton@...chiereds.net>
--
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