| 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: <87k1lnw0ec.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name>
Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2018 11:38:19 +1100
From: NeilBrown <neilb@...e.com>
To: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>
Cc: Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Martin Wilck <mwilck@...e.de>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
Frank Filz <ffilzlnx@...dspring.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/12] fs/locks: create a tree of dependent requests.
On Thu, Nov 08 2018, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 05, 2018 at 12:30:48PM +1100, NeilBrown wrote:
>> When we find an existing lock which conflicts with a request,
>> and the request wants to wait, we currently add the request
>> to a list. When the lock is removed, the whole list is woken.
>> This can cause the thundering-herd problem.
>> To reduce the problem, we make use of the (new) fact that
>> a pending request can itself have a list of blocked requests.
>> When we find a conflict, we look through the existing blocked requests.
>> If any one of them blocks the new request, the new request is attached
>> below that request, otherwise it is added to the list of blocked
>> requests, which are now known to be mutually non-conflicting.
>>
>> This way, when the lock is released, only a set of non-conflicting
>> locks will be woken, the rest can stay asleep.
>> If the lock request cannot be granted and the request needs to be
>> requeued, all the other requests it blocks will then be woken
>
> So, to make sure I understand: the tree of blocking locks only ever has
> three levels (the active lock, the locks blocking on it, and their
> children?)
Not correct.
Blocks is only vertical, never horizontal. Siblings never block each
other.
So one process hold a lock on a byte, and 27 other process want a lock
on that byte, then there will be 28 levels in a narrow tree - it is
effectively a queue.
Branching (via siblings) only happens when a child conflict with only
part of the lock held by the parent.
So if one process locks 32K, then two other processes request locks on
the 2 16K halves, then 4 processes request locks on the 8K quarters, and
so-on, then you could end up with 32767 processes in a binary tree, with
half of them all waiting on different individual bytes.
NeilBrown
>
> --b.
>
>>
>> Reported-and-tested-by: Martin Wilck <mwilck@...e.de>
>> Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <neilb@...e.com>
>> ---
>> fs/locks.c | 29 +++++++++++++++++++++++------
>> 1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/locks.c b/fs/locks.c
>> index 802d5853acd5..1b0eac6b2918 100644
>> --- a/fs/locks.c
>> +++ b/fs/locks.c
>> @@ -715,11 +715,25 @@ static void locks_delete_block(struct file_lock *waiter)
>> * fl_blocked list itself is protected by the blocked_lock_lock, but by ensuring
>> * that the flc_lock is also held on insertions we can avoid taking the
>> * blocked_lock_lock in some cases when we see that the fl_blocked list is empty.
>> + *
>> + * Rather than just adding to the list, we check for conflicts with any existing
>> + * waiters, and add beneath any waiter that blocks the new waiter.
>> + * Thus wakeups don't happen until needed.
>> */
>> static void __locks_insert_block(struct file_lock *blocker,
>> - struct file_lock *waiter)
>> + struct file_lock *waiter,
>> + bool conflict(struct file_lock *,
>> + struct file_lock *))
>> {
>> + struct file_lock *fl;
>> BUG_ON(!list_empty(&waiter->fl_block));
>> +
>> +new_blocker:
>> + list_for_each_entry(fl, &blocker->fl_blocked, fl_block)
>> + if (conflict(fl, waiter)) {
>> + blocker = fl;
>> + goto new_blocker;
>> + }
>> waiter->fl_blocker = blocker;
>> list_add_tail(&waiter->fl_block, &blocker->fl_blocked);
>> if (IS_POSIX(blocker) && !IS_OFDLCK(blocker))
>> @@ -734,10 +748,12 @@ static void __locks_insert_block(struct file_lock *blocker,
>>
>> /* Must be called with flc_lock held. */
>> static void locks_insert_block(struct file_lock *blocker,
>> - struct file_lock *waiter)
>> + struct file_lock *waiter,
>> + bool conflict(struct file_lock *,
>> + struct file_lock *))
>> {
>> spin_lock(&blocked_lock_lock);
>> - __locks_insert_block(blocker, waiter);
>> + __locks_insert_block(blocker, waiter, conflict);
>> spin_unlock(&blocked_lock_lock);
>> }
>>
>> @@ -996,7 +1012,7 @@ static int flock_lock_inode(struct inode *inode, struct file_lock *request)
>> if (!(request->fl_flags & FL_SLEEP))
>> goto out;
>> error = FILE_LOCK_DEFERRED;
>> - locks_insert_block(fl, request);
>> + locks_insert_block(fl, request, flock_locks_conflict);
>> goto out;
>> }
>> if (request->fl_flags & FL_ACCESS)
>> @@ -1071,7 +1087,8 @@ static int posix_lock_inode(struct inode *inode, struct file_lock *request,
>> spin_lock(&blocked_lock_lock);
>> if (likely(!posix_locks_deadlock(request, fl))) {
>> error = FILE_LOCK_DEFERRED;
>> - __locks_insert_block(fl, request);
>> + __locks_insert_block(fl, request,
>> + posix_locks_conflict);
>> }
>> spin_unlock(&blocked_lock_lock);
>> goto out;
>> @@ -1542,7 +1559,7 @@ int __break_lease(struct inode *inode, unsigned int mode, unsigned int type)
>> break_time -= jiffies;
>> if (break_time == 0)
>> break_time++;
>> - locks_insert_block(fl, new_fl);
>> + locks_insert_block(fl, new_fl, leases_conflict);
>> trace_break_lease_block(inode, new_fl);
>> spin_unlock(&ctx->flc_lock);
>> percpu_up_read_preempt_enable(&file_rwsem);
>>
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (833 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists