From: Dave Hansen <haveblue@us.ibm.com>
To: matthew@wil.cx
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: fs/locks.c BKL removal
Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 14:48:39 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3CDC4037.8040104@us.ibm.com> (raw)
Matthew,
Al Viro pointed me your way.
I'm looking into the fs/locks.c mess. It appears that there was an
attempt to convert this over to a semaphore, but it was removed just
before the 2.4 release because of some deadlocks.
Whenever the i_flock list is traversed, the BKL is held. It is also
held while running through the file_lock_list which I think is used
only for /proc/locks.
We definitely need a semaphore because of all the blocking that goes
on. We can either have a global lock for all of them, which I think
was tried last time. Or, we can split it up a bit more. With the
current design, there will need to be a lock for the global list, each
individual list, and one for each individual lock to protect against
access from the reference in the file_lock_list and the inode->i_flock
list.
However, I think that the file_lock_list complexity may be able to be
reduced. If we make the file_lock_list a list of inodes (or just the
i_flocks) with active locks, we can avoid the complexity of having an
individual file_lock lock. That way, we at least reduce the number of
_types_ of locks. It increases the number of dereferences, but this
is /proc we're talking about. Any comments?
Talking about locks for locks is confusing :)
--
Dave Hansen
haveblue@us.ibm.com
next reply other threads:[~2002-05-10 21:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-05-10 21:48 Dave Hansen [this message]
2002-05-10 22:13 ` fs/locks.c BKL removal Dave Hansen
2002-05-10 23:17 ` Andrew Morton
2002-05-11 19:48 ` Matthew Wilcox
2002-05-11 19:45 ` Matthew Wilcox
2002-05-12 1:40 ` Dave Hansen
2002-05-12 2:07 ` Matthew Wilcox
[not found] ` <20020513171729.4165.qmail@thales.mathematik.uni-ulm.de>
2002-05-13 19:43 ` Matthew Wilcox
2002-05-13 23:15 ` Christian Ehrhardt
2002-05-13 23:18 ` Andreas Dilger
2002-05-14 9:02 ` Christian Ehrhardt
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=3CDC4037.8040104@us.ibm.com \
--to=haveblue@us.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=matthew@wil.cx \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.