On 08/04/2016 05:09 PM, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> On Thu, 2016-08-04 at 10:26 +0300, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
>>> On busy container servers reading /proc/locks shows all the locks
>>> created by all clients. This can cause large latency spikes. In my
>>> case I observed lsof taking up to 5-10 seconds while processing around
>>> 50k locks. Fix this by limiting the locks shown only to those created
>>> in the same pidns as the one the proc fs was mounted in. When reading
>>> /proc/locks from the init_pid_ns proc instance then perform no
>>> filtering
>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Nikolay Borisov <kernel@xxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>> fs/locks.c | 4 ++++
>>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/fs/locks.c b/fs/locks.c
>>> index ee1b15f6fc13..df038c27b19f 100644
>>> --- a/fs/locks.c
>>> +++ b/fs/locks.c
>>> @@ -2648,9 +2648,13 @@ static int locks_show(struct seq_file *f, void *v)
>>> {
>>>> struct locks_iterator *iter = f->private;
>>>> struct file_lock *fl, *bfl;
>>>> + struct pid_namespace *proc_pidns = file_inode(f->file)->i_sb->s_fs_info;
>>>
>>>> fl = hlist_entry(v, struct file_lock, fl_link);
>>>
>>>> + if (fl->fl_nspid && !pid_nr_ns(fl->fl_nspid, proc_pidns))
>>>> + return 0;
>>> +
>>>> lock_get_status(f, fl, iter->li_pos, "");
>>>
>>>> list_for_each_entry(bfl, &fl->fl_block, fl_block)
>>
>> Looks reasonable to me. Eric, any comments? If this looks alright I'll
>> go ahead and merge into my -next branch for v4.9.
>
> Generally this looks good to me.
>
> Some related nits.
> - We are not filtering the processes that are blocked waiting on the
> lock.
>
> - The same issue shows up in show_fd_locks.
>
> - In lock_get_status the code should say:
> if (fl->fl_nspid) {
> /* Don't let fl_pid change depending on who is reading the file */
> fl_pid = pid_nr_ns(fl->fl_nspid, proc_pidns);
> /* If there isn't a fl_pid don't display who is waiting on the lock */
> if (fl_pid == 0)
> return;
> } else {
> fl_pid = fl->fl_pid;
> }
>
> All of which implies that lock_get_status needs to take proc_pidns
> from it's caller, or derive proc_pidns from the seq_file.
Just had a quick look at the code. If the aforementioned change is
introduced in lock_get_status and proc_pidns is derived from the
seq_file, then the issue in show_fd_locks would also be fixed, correct?
We essentially want to skip showing locks for whose owner we don't have
a mapping in the current pidns hierarchy?
>
> Eric
>
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
