Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | From | NeilBrown <> | Date | Wed, 28 Nov 2018 11:53:48 +1100 | Subject | [PATCH] locks: fix performance regressions. |
| |
The kernel test robot reported two performance regressions caused by recent patches. Both appear to related to the global spinlock blocked_lock_lock being taken more often.
This patch avoids taking that lock in the cases tested.
Reported-by: kernel test robot <rong.a.chen@intel.com> Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.com> ---
Hi Jeff, you might like to merge these back into the patches that introduced the problem. Or you might like me to re-send the series with these merged in, in which case, please ask.
And a BIG thank-you to the kernel-test-robot team!!
Thanks, NeilBrown
fs/locks.c | 21 +++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+)
diff --git a/fs/locks.c b/fs/locks.c index f456cd3d9d50..67519a43e27a 100644 --- a/fs/locks.c +++ b/fs/locks.c @@ -444,6 +444,13 @@ static void locks_move_blocks(struct file_lock *new, struct file_lock *fl) { struct file_lock *f; + /* + * As ctx->flc_lock is held, new requests cannot be added to + * ->fl_blocked_requests, so we don't need a lock to check if it + * is empty. + */ + if (list_empty(&fl->fl_blocked_requests)) + return; spin_lock(&blocked_lock_lock); list_splice_init(&fl->fl_blocked_requests, &new->fl_blocked_requests); list_for_each_entry(f, &fl->fl_blocked_requests, fl_blocked_member) @@ -749,6 +756,20 @@ int locks_delete_block(struct file_lock *waiter) { int status = -ENOENT; + /* + * If fl_blocker is NULL, it won't be set again as this thread + * "owns" the lock and is the only one that might try to claim + * the lock. So it is safe to test fl_blocker locklessly. + * Also if fl_blocker is NULL, this waiter is not listed on + * fl_blocked_requests for some lock, so no other request can + * be added to the list of fl_blocked_requests for this + * request. So if fl_blocker is NULL, it is safe to + * locklessly check if fl_blocked_requests is empty. If both + * of these checks succeed, there is no need to take the lock. + */ + if (waiter->fl_blocker == NULL && + list_empty(&waiter->fl_blocked_requests)) + return status; spin_lock(&blocked_lock_lock); if (waiter->fl_blocker) status = 0; -- 2.14.0.rc0.dirty [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
| |