From: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
To: Alexander Aring <aahringo@redhat.com>, linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org
Cc: cluster-devel@redhat.com, ocfs2-devel@lists.linux.dev,
chuck.lever@oracle.com, anna@kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, trond.myklebust@hammerspace.com
Subject: Re: [Cluster-devel] [PATCH 2/7] lockd: don't call vfs_lock_file() for pending requests
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2023 14:10:30 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ae36349af354dcf40c29ff1c6bf7d930f08e7115.camel@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230823213352.1971009-3-aahringo@redhat.com>
On Wed, 2023-08-23 at 17:33 -0400, Alexander Aring wrote:
> This patch returns nlm_lck_blocked in nlmsvc_lock() when an asynchronous
> lock request is pending. During testing I ran into the case with the
> side-effects that lockd is waiting for only one lm_grant() callback
> because it's already part of the nlm_blocked list. If another
> asynchronous for the same nlm_block is triggered two lm_grant()
> callbacks will occur but lockd was only waiting for one.
>
> To avoid any change of existing users this handling will only being made
> when export_op_support_safe_async_lock() returns true.
>
> Signed-off-by: Alexander Aring <aahringo@redhat.com>
> ---
> fs/lockd/svclock.c | 24 +++++++++++++++++-------
> 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/lockd/svclock.c b/fs/lockd/svclock.c
> index 6e3b230e8317..aa4174fbaf5b 100644
> --- a/fs/lockd/svclock.c
> +++ b/fs/lockd/svclock.c
> @@ -531,6 +531,23 @@ nlmsvc_lock(struct svc_rqst *rqstp, struct nlm_file *file,
> goto out;
> }
>
> + spin_lock(&nlm_blocked_lock);
> + /*
> + * If this is a lock request for an already pending
> + * lock request we return nlm_lck_blocked without calling
> + * vfs_lock_file() again. Otherwise we have two pending
> + * requests on the underlaying ->lock() implementation but
> + * only one nlm_block to being granted by lm_grant().
> + */
> + if (export_op_support_safe_async_lock(inode->i_sb->s_export_op,
> + nlmsvc_file_file(file)->f_op) &&
> + !list_empty(&block->b_list)) {
> + spin_unlock(&nlm_blocked_lock);
> + ret = nlm_lck_blocked;
> + goto out;
> + }
Looks reasonable. The block->b_list check is subtle, but the comment
helps.
> + spin_unlock(&nlm_blocked_lock);
> +
> if (!wait)
> lock->fl.fl_flags &= ~FL_SLEEP;
> mode = lock_to_openmode(&lock->fl);
> @@ -543,13 +560,6 @@ nlmsvc_lock(struct svc_rqst *rqstp, struct nlm_file *file,
> ret = nlm_granted;
> goto out;
> case -EAGAIN:
> - /*
> - * If this is a blocking request for an
> - * already pending lock request then we need
> - * to put it back on lockd's block list
> - */
> - if (wait)
> - break;
> ret = async_block ? nlm_lck_blocked : nlm_lck_denied;
> goto out;
> case FILE_LOCK_DEFERRED:
Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-08-25 18:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-08-23 21:33 [Cluster-devel] [PATCH 0/7] lockd: dlm: async lock request changes Alexander Aring
2023-08-23 21:33 ` [Cluster-devel] [PATCH 1/7] lockd: introduce safe async lock op Alexander Aring
2023-08-25 17:21 ` Chuck Lever
2023-08-30 12:32 ` Alexander Aring
2023-08-30 13:45 ` Chuck Lever
2023-08-25 18:14 ` Jeff Layton
2023-08-23 21:33 ` [Cluster-devel] [PATCH 2/7] lockd: don't call vfs_lock_file() for pending requests Alexander Aring
2023-08-25 18:10 ` Jeff Layton [this message]
2023-08-30 12:15 ` Alexander Aring
2023-08-23 21:33 ` [Cluster-devel] [PATCH 3/7] lockd: fix race in async lock request handling Alexander Aring
2023-08-25 17:35 ` Chuck Lever
2023-08-25 18:16 ` Jeff Layton
2023-08-23 21:33 ` [Cluster-devel] [PATCH 4/7] lockd: add doc to enable EXPORT_OP_SAFE_ASYNC_LOCK Alexander Aring
2023-08-25 18:17 ` Jeff Layton
2023-08-23 21:33 ` [Cluster-devel] [PATCH 5/7] dlm: use fl_owner from lockd Alexander Aring
2023-08-23 21:33 ` [Cluster-devel] [PATCH 6/7] dlm: use FL_SLEEP to determine blocking vs non-blocking Alexander Aring
2023-08-25 18:18 ` Jeff Layton
2023-08-30 12:38 ` Alexander Aring
2023-08-30 13:46 ` Jeff Layton
2023-08-23 21:33 ` [Cluster-devel] [PATCH 7/7] dlm: implement EXPORT_OP_SAFE_ASYNC_LOCK Alexander Aring
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=ae36349af354dcf40c29ff1c6bf7d930f08e7115.camel@kernel.org \
--to=jlayton@kernel.org \
--cc=aahringo@redhat.com \
--cc=anna@kernel.org \
--cc=chuck.lever@oracle.com \
--cc=cluster-devel@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=ocfs2-devel@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=trond.myklebust@hammerspace.com \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).