From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from fieldses.org ([173.255.197.46]:49666 "EHLO fieldses.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725725AbeHJFUj (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Aug 2018 01:20:39 -0400 Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2018 22:52:51 -0400 From: "J. Bruce Fields" To: NeilBrown Cc: Jeff Layton , Alexander Viro , Martin Wilck , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Frank Filz , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5 - V2] locks: avoid thundering-herd wake-ups Message-ID: <20180810025251.GO23873@fieldses.org> References: <153378012255.1220.6754153662007899557.stgit@noble> <20180809173245.GM23873@fieldses.org> <87lg9frxyc.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name> <20180810002922.GA3915@fieldses.org> <871sb7rnul.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <871sb7rnul.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 11:50:58AM +1000, NeilBrown wrote: > You're good at this game! Everybody's got to have a hobby, mine is pathological posix locking cases.... > So, because a locker with the same "owner" gets a free pass, you can > *never* say that any lock which conflicts with A also conflicts with B, > as a lock with the same owner as B will never conflict with B, even > though it conflicts with A. > > I think there is still value in having the tree, but when a waiter is > attached under a new blocker, we need to walk the whole tree beneath the > waiter and detach/wake anything that is not blocked by the new blocker. If you're walking the whole tree every time then it might as well be a flat list, I think? --b.