From: Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@bmw-carit.de>
To: Jeff Layton <jlayton@poochiereds.net>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>, <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, John Kacur <jkacur@redhat.com>,
Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC v1 0/5] fs/locks: Use plain percpu spinlocks instead of lglock to protect file_lock
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2015 15:03:28 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <54F710B0.7040507@bmw-carit.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150302192907.2a58ddcb@tlielax.poochiereds.net>
On 03/03/2015 01:29 AM, Jeff Layton wrote:
>> Hmm, are you sure about that? I read the code this way that when a lock
>> is added to flock_list it stays on that CPU. The locks are not moved
>> from one flock_list to another during their existent.
>>
>
> Yes, I'm sure. When a file lock is acquired, we assign the fl_link_cpu
> to the current CPU and add it to the current CPU's global list. When
> the lock is released, any blocked lock that might have been blocking on
> it could acquire it at that point, and that doesn't necessarily occur
> on the same CPU as where the lock was originally held.
>
> So, it's entirely possible that between when you drop the spinlock on
> one CPU and pick it up on another, the lock could have been released
> and then reacquired on a different CPU.
D'oh. I am an idiot. I didn't really understand it the first time. Yes,
you are right.
cheers,
daniel
prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-03-04 14:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-02-20 14:39 [RFC v1 0/5] fs/locks: Use plain percpu spinlocks instead of lglock to protect file_lock Daniel Wagner
2015-02-20 14:39 ` [RFC v1 1/5] locks: Remove unnecessary IS_POSIX test Daniel Wagner
2015-02-20 14:39 ` [RFC v1 2/5] locks: Split insert/delete block functions into flock/posix parts Daniel Wagner
2015-02-20 14:39 ` [RFC v1 3/5] seq_file: Add percpu seq_hlist helpers with locking iterators Daniel Wagner
2015-02-20 14:39 ` [RFC v1 4/5] locks: Use percpu spinlocks to protect file_lock_list Daniel Wagner
2015-02-20 14:39 ` [RFC v1 5/5] locks: Use blocked_lock_lock only to protect blocked_hash Daniel Wagner
2015-02-20 16:05 ` [RFC v1 0/5] fs/locks: Use plain percpu spinlocks instead of lglock to protect file_lock Andi Kleen
2015-02-24 15:58 ` Daniel Wagner
2015-02-24 21:06 ` Jeff Layton
2015-02-27 15:01 ` Daniel Wagner
2015-02-27 15:30 ` Jeff Layton
2015-03-02 12:58 ` Daniel Wagner
2015-03-03 0:29 ` Jeff Layton
2015-03-04 14:03 ` Daniel Wagner [this message]
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=54F710B0.7040507@bmw-carit.de \
--to=daniel.wagner@bmw-carit.de \
--cc=andi@firstfloor.org \
--cc=bfields@fieldses.org \
--cc=jkacur@redhat.com \
--cc=jlayton@poochiereds.net \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--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