| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author |
|---|
|
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>
|
|
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>
|
|
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>
|
|
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>
|
