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: 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