summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/fs/reiserfs/lock.c
AgeCommit message (Collapse)Author
2013-08-08reiserfs: locking, handle nested locks properlyJeff Mahoney
The reiserfs write lock replaced the BKL and uses similar semantics. Frederic's locking code makes a distinction between when the lock is nested and when it's being acquired/released, but I don't think that's the right distinction to make. The right distinction is between the lock being released at end-of-use and the lock being released for a schedule. The unlock should return the depth and the lock should restore it, rather than the other way around as it is now. This patch implements that and adds a number of places where the lock should be dropped. Signed-off-by: Jeff Mahoney <jeffm@suse.com>
2012-03-21move private bits of reiserfs_fs.h to fs/reiserfs/reiserfs.hAl Viro
Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
2011-03-31Fix common misspellingsLucas De Marchi
Fixes generated by 'codespell' and manually reviewed. Signed-off-by: Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@profusion.mobi>
2010-01-02reiserfs: Warn on lock relax if taken recursivelyFrederic Weisbecker
When we relax the reiserfs lock to avoid creating unwanted dependencies against others locks while grabbing these, we want to ensure it has not been taken recursively, otherwise the lock won't be really relaxed. Only its depth will be decreased. The unwanted dependency would then actually happen. To prevent from that, add a reiserfs_lock_check_recursive() call in the places that need it. Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com> Cc: Alexander Beregalov <a.beregalov@gmail.com> Cc: Chris Mason <chris.mason@oracle.com> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
2009-09-14kill-the-bkl/reiserfs: panic in case of lock imbalanceFrederic Weisbecker
Until now, trying to unlock the reiserfs write lock whereas the current task doesn't hold it lead to a simple warning. We should actually warn and panic in this case to avoid the user datas to reach an unstable state. Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com> Cc: Jeff Mahoney <jeffm@suse.com> Cc: Chris Mason <chris.mason@oracle.com> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> Cc: Alexander Beregalov <a.beregalov@gmail.com> Cc: Laurent Riffard <laurent.riffard@free.fr>
2009-09-14kill-the-BKL/reiserfs: provide a tool to lock only once the write lockFrederic Weisbecker
Sometimes we don't want to recursively hold the per superblock write lock because we want to be sure it is actually released when we come to sleep. This patch introduces the necessary tools for that. reiserfs_write_lock_once() does the same job than reiserfs_write_lock() except that it won't try to acquire recursively the lock if the current task already owns it. Also the lock_depth before the call of this function is returned. reiserfs_write_unlock_once() unlock only if reiserfs_write_lock_once() returned a depth equal to -1, ie: only if it actually locked. Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com> Cc: Alessio Igor Bogani <abogani@texware.it> Cc: Jeff Mahoney <jeffm@suse.com> Cc: Alexander Beregalov <a.beregalov@gmail.com> Cc: Chris Mason <chris.mason@oracle.com> LKML-Reference: <1239680065-25013-2-git-send-email-fweisbec@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
2009-09-14reiserfs: kill-the-BKLFrederic Weisbecker
This patch is an attempt to remove the Bkl based locking scheme from reiserfs and is intended. It is a bit inspired from an old attempt by Peter Zijlstra: http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0704.2/2174.html The bkl is heavily used in this filesystem to prevent from concurrent write accesses on the filesystem. Reiserfs makes a deep use of the specific properties of the Bkl: - It can be acqquired recursively by a same task - It is released on the schedule() calls and reacquired when schedule() returns The two properties above are a roadmap for the reiserfs write locking so it's very hard to simply replace it with a common mutex. - We need a recursive-able locking unless we want to restructure several blocks of the code. - We need to identify the sites where the bkl was implictly relaxed (schedule, wait, sync, etc...) so that we can in turn release and reacquire our new lock explicitly. Such implicit releases of the lock are often required to let other resources producer/consumer do their job or we can suffer unexpected starvations or deadlocks. So the new lock that replaces the bkl here is a per superblock mutex with a specific property: it can be acquired recursively by a same task, like the bkl. For such purpose, we integrate a lock owner and a lock depth field on the superblock information structure. The first axis on this patch is to turn reiserfs_write_(un)lock() function into a wrapper to manage this mutex. Also some explicit calls to lock_kernel() have been converted to reiserfs_write_lock() helpers. The second axis is to find the important blocking sites (schedule...(), wait_on_buffer(), sync_dirty_buffer(), etc...) and then apply an explicit release of the write lock on these locations before blocking. Then we can safely wait for those who can give us resources or those who need some. Typically this is a fight between the current writer, the reiserfs workqueue (aka the async commiter) and the pdflush threads. The third axis is a consequence of the second. The write lock is usually on top of a lock dependency chain which can include the journal lock, the flush lock or the commit lock. So it's dangerous to release and trying to reacquire the write lock while we still hold other locks. This is fine with the bkl: T1 T2 lock_kernel() mutex_lock(A) unlock_kernel() // do something lock_kernel() mutex_lock(A) -> already locked by T1 schedule() (and then unlock_kernel()) lock_kernel() mutex_unlock(A) .... This is not fine with a mutex: T1 T2 mutex_lock(write) mutex_lock(A) mutex_unlock(write) // do something mutex_lock(write) mutex_lock(A) -> already locked by T1 schedule() mutex_lock(write) -> already locked by T2 deadlock The solution in this patch is to provide a helper which releases the write lock and sleep a bit if we can't lock a mutex that depend on it. It's another simulation of the bkl behaviour. The last axis is to locate the fs callbacks that are called with the bkl held, according to Documentation/filesystem/Locking. Those are: - reiserfs_remount - reiserfs_fill_super - reiserfs_put_super Reiserfs didn't need to explicitly lock because of the context of these callbacks. But now we must take care of that with the new locking. After this patch, reiserfs suffers from a slight performance regression (for now). On UP, a high volume write with dd reports an average of 27 MB/s instead of 30 MB/s without the patch applied. Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com> Reviewed-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> Cc: Jeff Mahoney <jeffm@suse.com> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> Cc: Bron Gondwana <brong@fastmail.fm> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk> LKML-Reference: <1239070789-13354-1-git-send-email-fweisbec@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>