On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 07:43:09AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Jun 2013 17:59:50 -0400
> "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 11:07:31PM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > > Testing has shown that iterating over the blocked_list for deadlock
> > > detection turns out to be a bottleneck. In order to alleviate that,
> > > begin the process of turning it into a hashtable. We start by turning
> > > the fl_link into a hlist_node and the global lists into hlists. A later
> > > patch will do the conversion of the blocked_list to a hashtable.
> >
> > Even simpler would be if we could add a pointer to the (well, a) lock
> > that a lockowner is blocking on, and then we'd just have to follow a
> > pointer. I haven't thought that through, though, perhaps that's hard ot
> > make work....
> >
> > --b.
> >
>
> I considered that as well and it makes sense for the simple local
> filesystem case where you just track ownership based on fl_owner_t.
>
> But...what about lockd? It considers ownership to be a tuple of the
> nlm_host and the pid sent in a lock request. I can't seem to wrap my
> brain around how to make such an approach work there.
I wonder if we could do something vaguely like
struct lock_owner_common {
struct file_lock *blocker;
};
struct nlmsvc_lock_owner {
struct lock_owner_common owner;
unsigned int client_pid;
};
and make fl_owner a (struct lock_owner_common *) and have lockd create
nlmsvc_lock_owners as necessary on the fly. The lm_compare_owner
callback could then be replaced by a pointer comparison. I'm not sure
what kind of locking or refcounting might be needed. But...
> I'll confess though that I haven't tried *too* hard yet
... me neither, so...
> though since I had bigger problems to sort through at the time. Maybe
> we can consider that for a later set?
sounds fine.
--b.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-cifs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
