public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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


             reply	other threads:[~2002-05-10 21:48 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 7+ 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

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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox