From: Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com>
To: viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, matthew@wil.cx, bfields@fieldses.org
Cc: linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org, linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org,
cluster-devel@redhat.com, sage@inktank.com,
samba-technical@lists.samba.org, Trond.Myklebust@netapp.com,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, piastryyy@gmail.com,
linux-afs@lists.infradead.org, dhowells@redhat.com,
smfrench@gmail.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org
Subject: [PATCH v2 11/14] locks: add a new "lm_owner_key" lock operation
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 07:09:05 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1370948948-31784-12-git-send-email-jlayton@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1370948948-31784-1-git-send-email-jlayton@redhat.com>
Currently, the hashing that the locking code uses to add these values
to the blocked_hash is simply calculated using fl_owner field. That's
valid in most cases except for server-side lockd, which validates the
owner of a lock based on fl_owner and fl_pid.
In the case where you have a small number of NFS clients doing a lot
of locking between different processes, you could end up with all
the blocked requests sitting in a very small number of hash buckets.
Add a new lm_owner_key operation to the lock_manager_operations that
will generate an unsigned long to use as the key in the hashtable.
That function is only implemented for server-side lockd, and simply
XORs the fl_owner and fl_pid.
Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com>
---
Documentation/filesystems/Locking | 18 +++++++++++-------
fs/lockd/svclock.c | 12 ++++++++++++
fs/locks.c | 12 ++++++++++--
include/linux/fs.h | 1 +
4 files changed, 34 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/filesystems/Locking b/Documentation/filesystems/Locking
index 13f91ab..ee351ac 100644
--- a/Documentation/filesystems/Locking
+++ b/Documentation/filesystems/Locking
@@ -351,6 +351,7 @@ fl_release_private: maybe no
----------------------- lock_manager_operations ---------------------------
prototypes:
int (*lm_compare_owner)(struct file_lock *, struct file_lock *);
+ unsigned long (*lm_owner_key)(struct file_lock *);
void (*lm_notify)(struct file_lock *); /* unblock callback */
int (*lm_grant)(struct file_lock *, struct file_lock *, int);
void (*lm_break)(struct file_lock *); /* break_lease callback */
@@ -360,18 +361,21 @@ locking rules:
inode->i_lock file_lock_lock may block
lm_compare_owner: yes maybe no
+lm_owner_key yes yes no
lm_notify: yes no no
lm_grant: no no no
lm_break: yes no no
lm_change yes no no
- ->lm_compare_owner is generally called with *an* inode->i_lock
-held. It may not be the i_lock of the inode for either file_lock being
-compared! This is the case with deadlock detection, since the code has
-to chase down the owners of locks that may be entirely unrelated to the
-one on which the lock is being acquired. For deadlock detection however,
-the file_lock_lock is also held. The locks primarily ensure that neither
-file_lock disappear out from under you while doing the comparison.
+ ->lm_compare_owner and ->lm_owner_key are generally called with
+*an* inode->i_lock held. It may not be the i_lock of the inode
+associated with either file_lock argument! This is the case with deadlock
+detection, since the code has to chase down the owners of locks that may
+be entirely unrelated to the one on which the lock is being acquired.
+For deadlock detection however, the file_lock_lock is also held. The
+fact that these locks are held ensures that the file_locks do not
+disappear out from under you while doing the comparison or generating an
+owner key.
--------------------------- buffer_head -----------------------------------
prototypes:
diff --git a/fs/lockd/svclock.c b/fs/lockd/svclock.c
index e703318..ce2cdab 100644
--- a/fs/lockd/svclock.c
+++ b/fs/lockd/svclock.c
@@ -744,8 +744,20 @@ static int nlmsvc_same_owner(struct file_lock *fl1, struct file_lock *fl2)
return fl1->fl_owner == fl2->fl_owner && fl1->fl_pid == fl2->fl_pid;
}
+/*
+ * Since NLM uses two "keys" for tracking locks, we need to hash them down
+ * to one for the blocked_hash. Here, we're just xor'ing the host address
+ * with the pid in order to create a key value for picking a hash bucket.
+ */
+static unsigned long
+nlmsvc_owner_key(struct file_lock *fl)
+{
+ return (unsigned long)fl->fl_owner ^ (unsigned long)fl->fl_pid;
+}
+
const struct lock_manager_operations nlmsvc_lock_operations = {
.lm_compare_owner = nlmsvc_same_owner,
+ .lm_owner_key = nlmsvc_owner_key,
.lm_notify = nlmsvc_notify_blocked,
.lm_grant = nlmsvc_grant_deferred,
};
diff --git a/fs/locks.c b/fs/locks.c
index 76fb7af..11e7784 100644
--- a/fs/locks.c
+++ b/fs/locks.c
@@ -481,11 +481,19 @@ static int posix_same_owner(struct file_lock *fl1, struct file_lock *fl2)
return fl1->fl_owner == fl2->fl_owner;
}
+static unsigned long
+posix_owner_key(struct file_lock *fl)
+{
+ if (fl->fl_lmops && fl->fl_lmops->lm_owner_key)
+ return fl->fl_lmops->lm_owner_key(fl);
+ return (unsigned long)fl->fl_owner;
+}
+
/* Remove a blocker or lock from one of the global lists */
static inline void
locks_insert_global_blocked(struct file_lock *waiter)
{
- hash_add(blocked_hash, &waiter->fl_link, (unsigned long)waiter->fl_owner);
+ hash_add(blocked_hash, &waiter->fl_link, posix_owner_key(waiter));
}
static inline void
@@ -739,7 +747,7 @@ static struct file_lock *what_owner_is_waiting_for(struct file_lock *block_fl)
{
struct file_lock *fl;
- hash_for_each_possible(blocked_hash, fl, fl_link, (unsigned long)block_fl->fl_owner) {
+ hash_for_each_possible(blocked_hash, fl, fl_link, posix_owner_key(block_fl)) {
if (posix_same_owner(fl, block_fl))
return fl->fl_next;
}
diff --git a/include/linux/fs.h b/include/linux/fs.h
index 3b340f7..232a345 100644
--- a/include/linux/fs.h
+++ b/include/linux/fs.h
@@ -908,6 +908,7 @@ struct file_lock_operations {
struct lock_manager_operations {
int (*lm_compare_owner)(struct file_lock *, struct file_lock *);
+ unsigned long (*lm_owner_key)(struct file_lock *);
void (*lm_notify)(struct file_lock *); /* unblock callback */
int (*lm_grant)(struct file_lock *, struct file_lock *, int);
void (*lm_break)(struct file_lock *);
--
1.7.1
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-06-11 11:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-06-11 11:08 [PATCH v2 00/14] locks: scalability improvements for file locking Jeff Layton
[not found] ` <1370948948-31784-1-git-send-email-jlayton-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
2013-06-11 11:08 ` [PATCH v2 01/14] cifs: use posix_unblock_lock instead of locks_delete_block Jeff Layton
2013-06-11 11:09 ` [PATCH v2 06/14] locks: don't walk inode->i_flock list in locks_show Jeff Layton
2013-06-13 19:45 ` J. Bruce Fields
2013-06-13 20:26 ` Jeff Layton
[not found] ` <51BB040C.3050101@samba.org>
2013-06-15 11:05 ` Jeff Layton
[not found] ` <20130615070535.6367eed9-9yPaYZwiELC+kQycOl6kW4xkIHaj4LzF@public.gmane.org>
2013-06-15 15:04 ` Simo
2013-06-11 11:09 ` [PATCH v2 12/14] locks: give the blocked_hash its own spinlock Jeff Layton
[not found] ` <1370948948-31784-13-git-send-email-jlayton-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
2013-06-13 15:02 ` J. Bruce Fields
2013-06-13 15:18 ` Jeff Layton
[not found] ` <20130613111844.59421622-4QP7MXygkU+dMjc06nkz3ljfA9RmPOcC@public.gmane.org>
2013-06-13 15:20 ` J. Bruce Fields
2013-06-11 16:04 ` [PATCH v2 00/14] locks: scalability improvements for file locking J. Bruce Fields
2013-06-11 16:35 ` Jeff Layton
2013-06-11 11:08 ` [PATCH v2 02/14] locks: make generic_add_lease and generic_delete_lease static Jeff Layton
2013-06-11 11:08 ` [PATCH v2 03/14] locks: comment cleanups and clarifications Jeff Layton
2013-06-11 11:08 ` [PATCH v2 04/14] locks: make "added" in __posix_lock_file a bool Jeff Layton
2013-06-11 11:08 ` [PATCH v2 05/14] locks: encapsulate the fl_link list handling Jeff Layton
2013-06-11 11:09 ` [PATCH v2 07/14] locks: convert to i_lock to protect i_flock list Jeff Layton
2013-06-13 14:41 ` J. Bruce Fields
2013-06-13 15:09 ` Jeff Layton
2013-06-11 11:09 ` [PATCH v2 08/14] locks: ensure that deadlock detection is atomic with respect to blocked_list modification Jeff Layton
2013-06-11 11:09 ` [PATCH v2 09/14] locks: convert fl_link to a hlist_node Jeff Layton
2013-06-11 11:09 ` [PATCH v2 10/14] locks: turn the blocked_list into a hashtable Jeff Layton
2013-06-13 14:50 ` J. Bruce Fields
2013-06-11 11:09 ` Jeff Layton [this message]
[not found] ` <1370948948-31784-12-git-send-email-jlayton-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
2013-06-13 15:00 ` [PATCH v2 11/14] locks: add a new "lm_owner_key" lock operation J. Bruce Fields
2013-06-11 11:09 ` [PATCH v2 13/14] seq_file: add seq_list_*_percpu helpers Jeff Layton
[not found] ` <1370948948-31784-14-git-send-email-jlayton-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
2013-06-13 15:27 ` J. Bruce Fields
2013-06-11 11:09 ` [PATCH v2 14/14] locks: move file_lock_list to a set of percpu hlist_heads and convert file_lock_lock to an lglock Jeff Layton
[not found] ` <1370948948-31784-15-git-send-email-jlayton-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
2013-06-13 15:37 ` J. Bruce Fields
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=1370948948-31784-12-git-send-email-jlayton@redhat.com \
--to=jlayton@redhat.com \
--cc=Trond.Myklebust@netapp.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=bfields@fieldses.org \
--cc=ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=cluster-devel@redhat.com \
--cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-afs@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=matthew@wil.cx \
--cc=piastryyy@gmail.com \
--cc=sage@inktank.com \
--cc=samba-technical@lists.samba.org \
--cc=smfrench@gmail.com \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
/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).