Re: [PATCH 2/2] [RFC] Remove BKL from fs/locks.c

[Steven Whitehouse]

Hi,

Some comments...

On Wed, 2010-04-14 at 22:36 +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> I've taken a patch originally written by Matthew Wilcox and
> ported it to the current version. It seems that there were
> originally concerns that this breaks NFS, but since Trond
> has recently removed the BKL from NFS, my naive assumption
> would be that it's all good now, despite not having tried to
> understand what it does.
[snip]
>  fs/locks.c |  110 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------------
>  1 files changed, 66 insertions(+), 44 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/locks.c b/fs/locks.c
> index ab24d49..87f1c60 100644
> --- a/fs/locks.c
> +++ b/fs/locks.c
> @@ -140,9 +140,23 @@ int lease_break_time = 45;
>  #define for_each_lock(inode, lockp) \
>  	for (lockp = &inode->i_flock; *lockp != NULL; lockp = &(*lockp)->fl_next)
>  
> +/*
> + * Protects the two list heads below, plus the inode->i_flock list
> + */
> +static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(file_lock_lock);
>  static LIST_HEAD(file_lock_list);
>  static LIST_HEAD(blocked_list);
>  
> +static inline void lock_flocks(void)
> +{
> +	spin_lock(&file_lock_lock);
> +}
> +
> +static inline void unlock_flocks(void)
> +{
> +	spin_unlock(&file_lock_lock);
> +}
> +
>  static struct kmem_cache *filelock_cache __read_mostly;
>  
Why not just put the spin lock calls inline?

[snip]
>  	for_each_lock(inode, before) {
>  		struct file_lock *fl = *before;
>  		if (IS_POSIX(fl))
> @@ -767,8 +779,11 @@ static int flock_lock_file(struct file *filp, struct file_lock *request)
>  	 * If a higher-priority process was blocked on the old file lock,
>  	 * give it the opportunity to lock the file.
>  	 */
> -	if (found)
> +	if (found) {
> +		unlock_flocks();
>  		cond_resched();
> +		lock_flocks();
> +	}
>  
Use cond_resched_lock() here perhaps?

[snip]

> @@ -1341,7 +1358,7 @@ int fcntl_getlease(struct file *filp)
>   *	The (input) flp->fl_lmops->fl_break function is required
>   *	by break_lease().
>   *
> - *	Called with kernel lock held.
> + *	Called with file_lock_lock held.
>   */
>  int generic_setlease(struct file *filp, long arg, struct file_lock **flp)
>  {
> @@ -1436,7 +1453,15 @@ out:
>  }
>  EXPORT_SYMBOL(generic_setlease);
>  
> - /**
> +static int __vfs_setlease(struct file *filp, long arg, struct file_lock **lease)
> +{
> +	if (filp->f_op && filp->f_op->setlease)
> +		return filp->f_op->setlease(filp, arg, lease);
> +	else
> +		return generic_setlease(filp, arg, lease);
> +}
> +
> +/**
>   *	vfs_setlease        -       sets a lease on an open file
>   *	@filp: file pointer
>   *	@arg: type of lease to obtain
> @@ -1467,12 +1492,9 @@ int vfs_setlease(struct file *filp, long arg, struct file_lock **lease)
>  {
>  	int error;
>  
> -	lock_kernel();
> -	if (filp->f_op && filp->f_op->setlease)
> -		error = filp->f_op->setlease(filp, arg, lease);
> -	else
> -		error = generic_setlease(filp, arg, lease);
> -	unlock_kernel();
> +	lock_flocks();
> +	error = __vfs_setlease(filp, arg, lease);
> +	unlock_flocks();
>  
This looks to me like generic_setlease() or whatever fs specific
->setlease() there might be will be called under a spin lock. That
doesn't look right to me.

Rather than adding locking here, why not push the BKL down into
generic_setlease() and ->setlease() first, and then eliminate it on a
case by case basis later on? That is the pattern that has been followed
elsewhere in the kernel.

I might have some further comment on this, but thats as far as I've got
at the moment,

Steve.


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/