linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.com>
To: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org>
Cc: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>,
	Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
	Martin Wilck <mwilck@suse.de>,
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
	Frank Filz <ffilzlnx@mindspring.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/12] fs/locks: create a tree of dependent requests.
Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2018 11:38:19 +1100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <87k1lnw0ec.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20181108213030.GF6090@fieldses.org>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5173 bytes --]

On Thu, Nov 08 2018, J. Bruce Fields wrote:

> On Mon, Nov 05, 2018 at 12:30:48PM +1100, NeilBrown wrote:
>> When we find an existing lock which conflicts with a request,
>> and the request wants to wait, we currently add the request
>> to a list.  When the lock is removed, the whole list is woken.
>> This can cause the thundering-herd problem.
>> To reduce the problem, we make use of the (new) fact that
>> a pending request can itself have a list of blocked requests.
>> When we find a conflict, we look through the existing blocked requests.
>> If any one of them blocks the new request, the new request is attached
>> below that request, otherwise it is added to the list of blocked
>> requests, which are now known to be mutually non-conflicting.
>> 
>> This way, when the lock is released, only a set of non-conflicting
>> locks will be woken, the rest can stay asleep.
>> If the lock request cannot be granted and the request needs to be
>> requeued, all the other requests it blocks will then be woken
>
> So, to make sure I understand: the tree of blocking locks only ever has
> three levels (the active lock, the locks blocking on it, and their
> children?)

Not correct.
Blocks is only vertical, never horizontal.  Siblings never block each
other.
So one process hold a lock on a byte, and 27 other process want a lock
on that byte, then there will be 28 levels in a narrow tree - it is
effectively a queue.
Branching (via siblings) only happens when a child conflict with only
part of the lock held by the parent.
So if one process locks 32K, then two other processes request locks on
the 2 16K halves, then 4 processes request locks on the 8K quarters, and
so-on, then you could end up with 32767 processes in a binary tree, with
half of them all waiting on different individual bytes.

NeilBrown

>
> --b.
>
>> 
>> Reported-and-tested-by: Martin Wilck <mwilck@suse.de>
>> Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.com>
>> ---
>>  fs/locks.c |   29 +++++++++++++++++++++++------
>>  1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>> 
>> diff --git a/fs/locks.c b/fs/locks.c
>> index 802d5853acd5..1b0eac6b2918 100644
>> --- a/fs/locks.c
>> +++ b/fs/locks.c
>> @@ -715,11 +715,25 @@ static void locks_delete_block(struct file_lock *waiter)
>>   * fl_blocked list itself is protected by the blocked_lock_lock, but by ensuring
>>   * that the flc_lock is also held on insertions we can avoid taking the
>>   * blocked_lock_lock in some cases when we see that the fl_blocked list is empty.
>> + *
>> + * Rather than just adding to the list, we check for conflicts with any existing
>> + * waiters, and add beneath any waiter that blocks the new waiter.
>> + * Thus wakeups don't happen until needed.
>>   */
>>  static void __locks_insert_block(struct file_lock *blocker,
>> -					struct file_lock *waiter)
>> +				 struct file_lock *waiter,
>> +				 bool conflict(struct file_lock *,
>> +					       struct file_lock *))
>>  {
>> +	struct file_lock *fl;
>>  	BUG_ON(!list_empty(&waiter->fl_block));
>> +
>> +new_blocker:
>> +	list_for_each_entry(fl, &blocker->fl_blocked, fl_block)
>> +		if (conflict(fl, waiter)) {
>> +			blocker =  fl;
>> +			goto new_blocker;
>> +		}
>>  	waiter->fl_blocker = blocker;
>>  	list_add_tail(&waiter->fl_block, &blocker->fl_blocked);
>>  	if (IS_POSIX(blocker) && !IS_OFDLCK(blocker))
>> @@ -734,10 +748,12 @@ static void __locks_insert_block(struct file_lock *blocker,
>>  
>>  /* Must be called with flc_lock held. */
>>  static void locks_insert_block(struct file_lock *blocker,
>> -					struct file_lock *waiter)
>> +			       struct file_lock *waiter,
>> +			       bool conflict(struct file_lock *,
>> +					     struct file_lock *))
>>  {
>>  	spin_lock(&blocked_lock_lock);
>> -	__locks_insert_block(blocker, waiter);
>> +	__locks_insert_block(blocker, waiter, conflict);
>>  	spin_unlock(&blocked_lock_lock);
>>  }
>>  
>> @@ -996,7 +1012,7 @@ static int flock_lock_inode(struct inode *inode, struct file_lock *request)
>>  		if (!(request->fl_flags & FL_SLEEP))
>>  			goto out;
>>  		error = FILE_LOCK_DEFERRED;
>> -		locks_insert_block(fl, request);
>> +		locks_insert_block(fl, request, flock_locks_conflict);
>>  		goto out;
>>  	}
>>  	if (request->fl_flags & FL_ACCESS)
>> @@ -1071,7 +1087,8 @@ static int posix_lock_inode(struct inode *inode, struct file_lock *request,
>>  			spin_lock(&blocked_lock_lock);
>>  			if (likely(!posix_locks_deadlock(request, fl))) {
>>  				error = FILE_LOCK_DEFERRED;
>> -				__locks_insert_block(fl, request);
>> +				__locks_insert_block(fl, request,
>> +						     posix_locks_conflict);
>>  			}
>>  			spin_unlock(&blocked_lock_lock);
>>  			goto out;
>> @@ -1542,7 +1559,7 @@ int __break_lease(struct inode *inode, unsigned int mode, unsigned int type)
>>  		break_time -= jiffies;
>>  	if (break_time == 0)
>>  		break_time++;
>> -	locks_insert_block(fl, new_fl);
>> +	locks_insert_block(fl, new_fl, leases_conflict);
>>  	trace_break_lease_block(inode, new_fl);
>>  	spin_unlock(&ctx->flc_lock);
>>  	percpu_up_read_preempt_enable(&file_rwsem);
>> 

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 832 bytes --]

  reply	other threads:[~2018-11-09  0:38 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-11-05  1:30 [PATCH 00/12] Series short description NeilBrown
2018-11-05  1:30 ` [PATCH 02/12] fs/locks: split out __locks_wake_up_blocks() NeilBrown
2018-11-05  1:30 ` [PATCH 08/12] fs/locks: always delete_block after waiting NeilBrown
2018-11-05  1:30 ` [PATCH 06/12] locks: use properly initialized file_lock when unlocking NeilBrown
2018-11-05  1:30 ` [PATCH 01/12] fs/locks: rename some lists and pointers NeilBrown
2018-11-08 20:26   ` J. Bruce Fields
2018-11-09  0:32     ` NeilBrown
2018-11-09  3:11       ` J. Bruce Fields
2018-11-05  1:30 ` [PATCH 04/12] gfs2: properly initial file_lock used for unlock NeilBrown
2018-11-05 12:18   ` Jeff Layton
2018-11-06  1:48     ` NeilBrown
2018-11-06 13:20       ` Jeff Layton
2018-11-05  1:30 ` [PATCH 05/12] ocfs2: " NeilBrown
2018-11-05  1:30 ` [PATCH 07/12] fs/locks: allow a lock request to block other requests NeilBrown
2018-11-05  1:30 ` [PATCH 09/12] fs/locks: change all *_conflict() functions to return bool NeilBrown
2018-11-05  1:30 ` [PATCH 03/12] NFS: use locks_copy_lock() to copy locks NeilBrown
2018-11-05  1:30 ` [PATCH 11/12] locks: merge posix_unblock_lock() and locks_delete_block() NeilBrown
2018-11-05  1:30 ` [PATCH 10/12] fs/locks: create a tree of dependent requests NeilBrown
2018-11-08 21:30   ` J. Bruce Fields
2018-11-09  0:38     ` NeilBrown [this message]
2018-11-09  3:09       ` J. Bruce Fields
2018-11-09  6:24         ` NeilBrown
2018-11-09 15:08           ` J. Bruce Fields
2018-11-05  1:30 ` [PATCH 12/12] VFS: locks: remove unnecessary white space NeilBrown
2018-11-08 21:35 ` [PATCH 00/12] Series short description J. Bruce Fields
2018-11-12  1:14 [PATCH 00/12 v5] locks: avoid thundering-herd wake-ups NeilBrown
2018-11-12  1:14 ` [PATCH 10/12] fs/locks: create a tree of dependent requests NeilBrown
2018-11-12 15:09   ` J. Bruce Fields
2018-11-29 23:04 [PATCH 00/12 v6] fs/locks: avoid thundering-herd wake-ups NeilBrown
2018-11-29 23:04 ` [PATCH 10/12] fs/locks: create a tree of dependent requests NeilBrown

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=87k1lnw0ec.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name \
    --to=neilb@suse.com \
    --cc=bfields@fieldses.org \
    --cc=ffilzlnx@mindspring.com \
    --cc=jlayton@kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mwilck@suse.de \
    --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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).