first set of vfs scale patches
PATCH 6/10 fs: cleanup files_lock locking
In reply to Nick Pigginfs: cleanup files_lock locking
Lock tty_files with a new spinlock, tty_files_lock; provide helpers to manipulate the per-sb files list; unexport the files_lock spinlock.
--- drivers/char/pty.c | 6 +++++- drivers/char/tty_io.c | 26 ++++++++++++++++++-------- fs/file_table.c | 42 ++++++++++++++++++------------------------ fs/open.c | 4 ++-- include/linux/fs.h | 7 ++----- include/linux/tty.h | 1 + security/selinux/hooks.c | 4 ++-- 7 files changed, 48 insertions(+), 42 deletions(-)
security/selinux/hooks.c +2 -2
@@ -2170,7 +2170,7 @@ static inline void flush_unauthorized_fi tty =get_current_tty ();if (tty) { -file_list_lock (); +spin_lock (&tty_files_lock);if (!list_empty (&tty->tty_files)) {struct inode *inode;
@@ -2186,7 +2186,7 @@ static inline void flush_unauthorized_fi drop_tty =1 ; } } -file_list_unlock (); +spin_unlock (&tty_files_lock);tty_kref_put (tty); }/* Reset controlling tty. */
drivers/char/pty.c +5 -1
@@ -676,7 +676,11 @@ static int ptmx_open(struct inode *inodeset_bit (TTY_PTY_LOCK , &tty->flags);/* LOCK THE SLAVE */ filp->private_data = tty; -file_move (filp, &tty->tty_files); + +file_sb_list_del (filp);/* __dentry_open has put it on the sb list */ +spin_lock (&tty_files_lock); +list_add (&filp->f_u.fu_list, &tty->tty_files); +spin_unlock (&tty_files_lock); retval =devpts_pty_new (inode, tty->link);if (retval)
drivers/char/tty_io.c +18 -8
@@ -136,6 +136,9 @@ LIST_HEAD(tty_drivers); /* linked listDEFINE_MUTEX (tty_mutex);EXPORT_SYMBOL (tty_mutex); +/* Spinlock to protect the tty->tty_files list */ +DEFINE_SPINLOCK (tty_files_lock); +static ssize_t tty_read (struct file *,char __user *,size_t ,loff_t *);static ssize_t tty_write (struct file *,const char __user *,size_t ,loff_t *); ssize_t redirected_tty_write(struct file *, const char __user *,
@@ -235,11 +238,11 @@ static int check_tty_count(struct tty_ststruct list_head *p;int count =0 ; -file_list_lock (); +spin_lock (&tty_files_lock);list_for_each (p, &tty->tty_files) { count++; } -file_list_unlock (); +spin_unlock (&tty_files_lock);if (tty->driver->type ==TTY_DRIVER_TYPE_PTY && tty->driver->subtype ==PTY_TYPE_SLAVE && tty->link && tty->link->count)
@@ -519,7 +522,7 @@ void __tty_hangup(struct tty_struct *ttyworkqueue with the lock held */ check_tty_count (tty,"tty_hangup" ); -file_list_lock (); +spin_lock (&tty_files_lock);/* This breaks for file handles being sent over AF_UNIX sockets ? */ list_for_each_entry (filp, &tty->tty_files, f_u.fu_list) {if (filp->f_op->write == redirected_tty_write)
@@ -530,7 +533,7 @@ void __tty_hangup(struct tty_struct *tty__tty_fasync (-1 , filp,0 );/* can't block */ filp->f_op = &hung_up_tty_fops; } -file_list_unlock (); +spin_unlock (&tty_files_lock);tty_ldisc_hangup (tty);
@@ -1424,9 +1427,9 @@ static void release_one_tty(struct work_tty_driver_kref_put (driver);module_put (driver->owner); -file_list_lock (); +spin_lock (&tty_files_lock);list_del_init (&tty->tty_files); -file_list_unlock (); +spin_unlock (&tty_files_lock);put_pid (tty->pgrp);put_pid (tty->session);
@@ -1671,7 +1674,10 @@ int tty_release(struct inode *inode, str* - do_tty_hangup no longer sees this file descriptor as * something that needs to be handled for hangups. */ -file_kill (filp); +spin_lock (&tty_files_lock); +BUG_ON (list_empty (&filp->f_u.fu_list)); +list_del_init (&filp->f_u.fu_list); +spin_unlock (&tty_files_lock); filp->private_data =NULL ;/*
@@ -1840,7 +1846,11 @@ got_driver: } filp->private_data = tty; -file_move (filp, &tty->tty_files); +BUG_ON (list_empty (&filp->f_u.fu_list)); +file_sb_list_del (filp);/* __dentry_open has put it on the sb list */ +spin_lock (&tty_files_lock); +list_add (&filp->f_u.fu_list, &tty->tty_files); +spin_unlock (&tty_files_lock);check_tty_count (tty,"tty_open" );if (tty->driver->type ==TTY_DRIVER_TYPE_PTY && tty->driver->subtype ==PTY_TYPE_MASTER )
fs/file_table.c +18 -24
104 lines not on this page · raw message
fs/open.c +2 -2
@@ -675,7 +675,7 @@ static struct file *__dentry_open(struct f->f_path.mnt = mnt; f->f_pos =0 ; f->f_op =fops_get (inode->i_fop); -file_move (f, &inode->i_sb->s_files); +file_sb_list_add (f, inode->i_sb); error =security_dentry_open (f, cred);if (error)
@@ -721,7 +721,7 @@ cleanup_all:mnt_drop_write (mnt); } } -file_kill (f); +file_sb_list_del (f); f->f_path.dentry =NULL ; f->f_path.mnt =NULL ; cleanup_file:
include/linux/fs.h +2 -5
@@ -953,9 +953,6 @@ struct file {unsigned long f_mnt_write_state;#endif }; -extern spinlock_t files_lock; -#define file_list_lock () spin_lock(&files_lock); -#define file_list_unlock () spin_unlock(&files_lock);#define get_file (x) atomic_long_inc(&(x)->f_count)#define fput_atomic (x) atomic_long_add_unless(&(x)->f_count, -1, 1)
@@ -2197,8 +2194,8 @@ static inline void insert_inode_hash(str__insert_inode_hash (inode, inode->i_ino); } -extern void file_move (struct file *f,struct list_head *list); -extern void file_kill (struct file *f); +extern void file_sb_list_add (struct file *f,struct super_block *sb); +extern void file_sb_list_del (struct file *f);#ifdef CONFIG_BLOCK extern void submit_bio (int ,struct bio *);extern int bdev_read_only (struct block_device *);
include/linux/tty.h +1 -0
@@ -470,6 +470,7 @@ extern struct tty_struct *tty_pair_get_textern struct tty_struct *tty_pair_get_pty (struct tty_struct *tty);extern struct mutex tty_mutex; +extern spinlock_t tty_files_lock;extern void tty_write_unlock (struct tty_struct *tty);extern int tty_write_lock (struct tty_struct *tty,int ndelay);
PATCH 7/10 tty: fix fu_list abuse
In reply to Nick Piggintty: fix fu_list abuse
tty code abuses fu_list, which causes a bug in remount,ro handling.
If a tty device node is opened on a filesystem, then the last link to the inode removed, the filesystem will be allowed to be remounted readonly. This is because fs_may_remount_ro does not find the 0 link tty inode on the file sb list (because the tty code incorrectly removed it to use for its own purpose). This can result in a filesystem with errors after it is marked "clean".
Taking idea from Christoph's initial patch, allocate a tty private struct at file->private_data and put our required list fields in there, linking file and tty. This makes tty nodes behave the same way as other device nodes and avoid meddling with the vfs, and avoids this bug.
The error handling is not trivial in the tty code, so for this bugfix, I take the simple approach of using __GFP_NOFAIL and don't worry about memory errors. This is not a problem because our allocator doesn't fail small allocs as a rule anyway. So proper error handling is left as an exercise for tty hackers.
[ Arguably filesystem's device inode would ideally be divorced from the driver's pseudo inode when it is opened, but in practice it's not clear whether that will ever be worth implementing. ]
--- drivers/char/pty.c | 6 --- drivers/char/tty_io.c | 84 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------- fs/internal.h | 2 + include/linux/fs.h | 2 - include/linux/tty.h | 8 ++++ security/selinux/hooks.c | 5 ++ 6 files changed, 69 insertions(+), 38 deletions(-)
include/linux/fs.h +0 -2
@@ -2194,8 +2194,6 @@ static inline void insert_inode_hash(str__insert_inode_hash (inode, inode->i_ino); } -extern void file_sb_list_add (struct file *f,struct super_block *sb); -extern void file_sb_list_del (struct file *f);#ifdef CONFIG_BLOCK extern void submit_bio (int ,struct bio *);extern int bdev_read_only (struct block_device *);
drivers/char/pty.c +1 -5
@@ -675,12 +675,8 @@ static int ptmx_open(struct inode *inode }set_bit (TTY_PTY_LOCK , &tty->flags);/* LOCK THE SLAVE */ - filp->private_data = tty; -file_sb_list_del (filp);/* __dentry_open has put it on the sb list */ -spin_lock (&tty_files_lock); -list_add (&filp->f_u.fu_list, &tty->tty_files); -spin_unlock (&tty_files_lock); +tty_add_file (tty, filp); retval =devpts_pty_new (inode, tty->link);if (retval)
drivers/char/tty_io.c +54 -30
189 lines not on this page · raw message
security/selinux/hooks.c +4 -1
@@ -2172,6 +2172,7 @@ static inline void flush_unauthorized_fiif (tty) {spin_lock (&tty_files_lock);if (!list_empty (&tty->tty_files)) { +struct tty_file_private *file_priv;struct inode *inode;/* Revalidate access to controlling tty.
@@ -2179,7 +2180,9 @@ static inline void flush_unauthorized_fithan using file_has_perm, as this particular open file may belong to another process and we are only interested in the inode-based check here. */ - file = list_first_entry(&tty->tty_files, struct file, f_u.fu_list); + file_priv =list_first_entry (&tty->tty_files, + struct tty_file_private, list); + file = file_priv->file; inode = file->f_path.dentry->d_inode;if (inode_has_perm (cred, inode,FILE__READ |FILE__WRITE ,NULL )) {
fs/internal.h +2 -0
@@ -80,6 +80,8 @@ extern void chroot_fs_refs(struct path */* * file_table.c */ +extern void file_sb_list_add (struct file *f,struct super_block *sb); +extern void file_sb_list_del (struct file *f);extern void mark_files_ro (struct super_block *);extern struct file *get_empty_filp (void );
include/linux/tty.h +8 -0
@@ -329,6 +329,13 @@ struct tty_struct {struct tty_port *port; }; +/* Each of a tty's open files has private_data pointing to tty_file_private */ +struct tty_file_private { +struct tty_struct *tty; +struct file *file; +struct list_head list; +}; +/* tty magic number */ #define TTY_MAGIC 0x5401
@@ -458,6 +465,7 @@ extern void proc_clear_tty(struct task_sextern struct tty_struct *get_current_tty (void );extern void tty_default_fops (struct file_operations *fops);extern struct tty_struct *alloc_tty_struct (void ); +extern void tty_add_file (struct tty_struct *tty,struct file *file);extern void free_tty_struct (struct tty_struct *tty);extern void initialize_tty_struct (struct tty_struct *tty,struct tty_driver *driver,int idx);
PATCH 8/10 lglock: introduce special lglock and brlock spin locks
In reply to Nick Pigginlglock: introduce special lglock and brlock spin locks
This patch introduces "local-global" locks (lglocks). These can be used to:
- Provide fast exclusive access to per-CPU data, with exclusive access to another CPU's data allowed but possibly subject to contention, and to provide very slow exclusive access to all per-CPU data.
- Or to provide very fast and scalable read serialisation, and to provide very slow exclusive serialisation of data (not necessarily per-CPU data).
Brlocks are also implemented as a short-hand notation for the latter use case.
Thanks to Paul for local/global naming convention.
--- include/linux/lglock.h | 172 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 172 insertions(+)
include/linux/lglock.h new file +172 -0
@@ -0,0 +1,172 @@ +/* +* Specialised local-global spinlock. Can only be declared as global variables +* to avoid overhead and keep things simple (and we don't want to start using +* these inside dynamically allocated structures). +* +* "local/global locks" (lglocks) can be used to: +* +* - Provide fast exclusive access to per-CPU data, with exclusive access to +* another CPU's data allowed but possibly subject to contention, and to +* provide very slow exclusive access to all per-CPU data. +* - Or to provide very fast and scalable read serialisation, and to provide +* very slow exclusive serialisation of data (not necessarily per-CPU data). +* +* Brlocks are also implemented as a short-hand notation for the latter use +* case. +* +* Copyright 2009, 2010, Nick Piggin, Novell Inc. +*/ +#ifndef __LINUX_LGLOCK_H +#define __LINUX_LGLOCK_H + +#include <linux/spinlock.h> +#include <linux/lockdep.h> +#include <linux/percpu.h> + +/* can make br locks by using local lock for read side, global lock for write */ +#define br_lock_init (name) name##_lock_init() +#define br_read_lock (name) name##_local_lock() +#define br_read_unlock (name) name##_local_unlock() +#define br_write_lock (name) name##_global_lock_online() +#define br_write_unlock (name) name##_global_unlock_online() + +#define DECLARE_BRLOCK (name) DECLARE_LGLOCK(name) +#define DEFINE_BRLOCK (name) DEFINE_LGLOCK(name) + + +#define lg_lock_init (name) name##_lock_init() +#define lg_local_lock (name) name##_local_lock() +#define lg_local_unlock (name) name##_local_unlock() +#define lg_local_lock_cpu (name, cpu) name##_local_lock_cpu(cpu) +#define lg_local_unlock_cpu (name, cpu) name##_local_unlock_cpu(cpu) +#define lg_global_lock (name) name##_global_lock() +#define lg_global_unlock (name) name##_global_unlock() +#define lg_global_lock_online (name) name##_global_lock_online() +#define lg_global_unlock_online (name) name##_global_unlock_online() + +#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC +#define LOCKDEP_INIT_MAP lockdep_init_map + +#define DEFINE_LGLOCK_LOCKDEP (name) \ + struct lock_class_key name##_lock_key; \ + struct lockdep_map name##_lock_dep_map; \ + EXPORT_SYMBOL(name##_lock_dep_map) + +#else +#define LOCKDEP_INIT_MAP (a, b, c, d) + +#define DEFINE_LGLOCK_LOCKDEP (name) +#endif + + +#define DECLARE_LGLOCK (name) \ + extern void name##_lock_init(void); \ + extern void name##_local_lock(void); \ + extern void name##_local_unlock(void); \ + extern void name##_local_lock_cpu(int cpu); \ + extern void name##_local_unlock_cpu(int cpu); \ + extern void name##_global_lock(void); \ + extern void name##_global_unlock(void); \ + extern void name##_global_lock_online(void); \ + extern void name##_global_unlock_online(void); \ + +#define DEFINE_LGLOCK (name) \ + \ + DEFINE_PER_CPU(arch_spinlock_t, name##_lock); \ + DEFINE_LGLOCK_LOCKDEP(name); \ + \ + void name##_lock_init(void) { \ + int i; \ + LOCKDEP_INIT_MAP(&name##_lock_dep_map, #name, &name##_lock_key, 0); \ + for_each_possible_cpu(i) { \ + arch_spinlock_t *lock; \ + lock = &per_cpu(name##_lock, i); \ + *lock = (arch_spinlock_t)__ARCH_SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED; \ + } \ + } \ + EXPORT_SYMBOL(name##_lock_init); \ + \ + void name##_local_lock(void) { \ + arch_spinlock_t *lock; \ + preempt_disable(); \ + rwlock_acquire_read(&name##_lock_dep_map, 0, 0, _THIS_IP_); \ + lock = &__get_cpu_var(name##_lock); \ + arch_spin_lock(lock); \ + } \ + EXPORT_SYMBOL(name##_local_lock); \ + \ + void name##_local_unlock(void) { \ + arch_spinlock_t *lock; \ + rwlock_release(&name##_lock_dep_map, 1, _THIS_IP_); \ + lock = &__get_cpu_var(name##_lock); \ + arch_spin_unlock(lock); \ + preempt_enable(); \ + } \ + EXPORT_SYMBOL(name##_local_unlock); \ + \ + void name##_local_lock_cpu(int cpu) { \ + arch_spinlock_t *lock; \ + preempt_disable(); \ + rwlock_acquire_read(&name##_lock_dep_map, 0, 0, _THIS_IP_); \ + lock = &per_cpu(name##_lock, cpu); \ + arch_spin_lock(lock); \ + } \ + EXPORT_SYMBOL(name##_local_lock_cpu); \ + \ + void name##_local_unlock_cpu(int cpu) { \ + arch_spinlock_t *lock; \ + rwlock_release(&name##_lock_dep_map, 1, _THIS_IP_); \ + lock = &per_cpu(name##_lock, cpu); \ + arch_spin_unlock(lock); \ + preempt_enable(); \ + } \ + EXPORT_SYMBOL(name##_local_unlock_cpu); \ + \ + void name##_global_lock_online(void) { \ + int i; \ + preempt_disable(); \ + rwlock_acquire(&name##_lock_dep_map, 0, 0, _RET_IP_); \ + for_each_online_cpu(i) { \ + arch_spinlock_t *lock; \ + lock = &per_cpu(name##_lock, i); \ + arch_spin_lock(lock); \ + } \ + } \ + EXPORT_SYMBOL(name##_global_lock_online); \ + \ + void name##_global_unlock_online(void) { \ + int i; \ + rwlock_release(&name##_lock_dep_map, 1, _RET_IP_); \ + for_each_online_cpu(i) { \ + arch_spinlock_t *lock; \ + lock = &per_cpu(name##_lock, i); \ + arch_spin_unlock(lock); \ + } \ + preempt_enable(); \ + } \ + EXPORT_SYMBOL(name##_global_unlock_online); \ + \ + void name##_global_lock(void) { \ + int i; \ + preempt_disable(); \ + rwlock_acquire(&name##_lock_dep_map, 0, 0, _RET_IP_); \ + for_each_online_cpu(i) { \ + arch_spinlock_t *lock; \ + lock = &per_cpu(name##_lock, i); \ + arch_spin_lock(lock); \ + } \ + } \ + EXPORT_SYMBOL(name##_global_lock); \ + \ + void name##_global_unlock(void) { \ + int i; \ + rwlock_release(&name##_lock_dep_map, 1, _RET_IP_); \ + for_each_online_cpu(i) { \ + arch_spinlock_t *lock; \ + lock = &per_cpu(name##_lock, i); \ + arch_spin_unlock(lock); \ + } \ + preempt_enable(); \ + } \ + EXPORT_SYMBOL(name##_global_unlock); +#endif
PATCH 2/10 fs: dentry allocation consolidation
In reply to Nick Pigginfs: dentry allocation consolidation
There are 2 duplicate copies of code in dentry allocation in path lookup. Consolidate them into a single function.
--- fs/namei.c | 70 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------------------------- 1 file changed, 33 insertions(+), 37 deletions(-)
fs/namei.c +33 -37
@@ -686,6 +686,35 @@ static __always_inline void follow_dotdo }/* +* Allocate a dentry with name and parent, and perform a parent +* directory ->lookup on it. Returns the new dentry, or ERR_PTR +* on error. parent->d_inode->i_mutex must be held. d_lookup must +* have verified that no child exists while under i_mutex. +*/ +static struct dentry *d_alloc_and_lookup (struct dentry *parent, +struct qstr *name,struct nameidata *nd) +{ +struct inode *inode = parent->d_inode; +struct dentry *dentry; +struct dentry *old; + +/* Don't create child dentry for a dead directory. */ +if (unlikely (IS_DEADDIR (inode))) +return ERR_PTR (-ENOENT ); + + dentry =d_alloc (parent, name); +if (unlikely (!dentry)) +return ERR_PTR (-ENOMEM ); + + old = inode->i_op->lookup (inode, dentry, nd); +if (unlikely (old)) { +dput (dentry); + dentry = old; + } +return dentry; +} + +/* * It's more convoluted than I'd like it to be, but... it's still fairly * small and for now I'd prefer to have fast path as straight as possible. * It _is_ time-critical.
@@ -738,30 +767,13 @@ need_lookup:* so doing d_lookup() (with seqlock), instead of lockfree __d_lookup */ dentry =d_lookup (parent, name); -if (!dentry) { -struct dentry *new; - -/* Don't create child dentry for a dead directory. */ - dentry =ERR_PTR (-ENOENT ); -if (IS_DEADDIR (dir)) - goto out_unlock; - - new =d_alloc (parent, name); - dentry =ERR_PTR (-ENOMEM ); -if (new) { - dentry = dir->i_op->lookup (dir, new, nd); -if (dentry) -dput (new); -else - dentry = new; - } -out_unlock: +if (likely (!dentry)) { + dentry =d_alloc_and_lookup (parent, name, nd);mutex_unlock (&dir->i_mutex);if (IS_ERR (dentry)) goto fail; goto done; } -/* * Uhhuh! Nasty case: the cache was re-populated while * we waited on the semaphore. Need to revalidate.
@@ -1135,24 +1147,8 @@ static struct dentry *__lookup_hash(struif (dentry && dentry->d_op && dentry->d_op->d_revalidate) dentry =do_revalidate (dentry, nd); -if (!dentry) { -struct dentry *new; - -/* Don't create child dentry for a dead directory. */ - dentry =ERR_PTR (-ENOENT ); -if (IS_DEADDIR (inode)) - goto out; - - new =d_alloc (base, name); - dentry =ERR_PTR (-ENOMEM ); -if (!new) - goto out; - dentry = inode->i_op->lookup (inode, new, nd); -if (!dentry) - dentry = new; -else -dput (new); - } +if (!dentry) + dentry =d_alloc_and_lookup (base, name, nd); out:return dentry; }
PATCH 3/10 apparmor: use task path helpers
In reply to Nick Pigginapparmor: use task path helpers
---
BTW, argh! dcache_lock! Why does everything have to invent its own reverse path lookup crud and hide it away in its own code? Also, admire the rest of this beautiful function.
--- security/apparmor/path.c | 9 ++------- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
security/apparmor/path.c +2 -7
@@ -62,19 +62,14 @@ static int d_namespace_path(struct pathint deleted, connected;int error =0 ; -/* Get the root we want to resolve too */ +/* Get the root we want to resolve too, released below */ if (flags &PATH_CHROOT_REL ) {/* resolve paths relative to chroot */ -read_lock (¤t->fs->lock); - root = current->fs->root; -/* released below */ -path_get (&root); -read_unlock (¤t->fs->lock); +get_fs_root (current->fs, &root); }else {/* resolve paths relative to namespace */ root.mnt = current->nsproxy->mnt_ns->root; root.dentry = root.mnt->mnt_root; -/* released below */ path_get (&root); }
PATCH 4/10 fs: fs_struct rwlock to spinlock
In reply to Nick Pigginfs: fs_struct rwlock to spinlock
struct fs_struct.lock is an rwlock with the read-side used to protect root and pwd members while taking references to them. Taking a reference to a path typically requires just 2 atomic ops, so the critical section is very small. Parallel read-side operations would have cacheline contention on the lock, the dentry, and the vfsmount cachelines, so the rwlock is unlikely to ever give a real parallelism increase.
Replace it with a spinlock to avoid one or two atomic operations in typical path lookup fastpath.
--- drivers/staging/pohmelfs/path_entry.c | 8 ++++---- fs/exec.c | 4 ++-- fs/fs_struct.c | 32 ++++++++++++++++---------------- include/linux/fs_struct.h | 14 +++++++------- kernel/fork.c | 10 +++++----- 5 files changed, 34 insertions(+), 34 deletions(-)
fs/fs_struct.c +16 -16
@@ -13,11 +13,11 @@ void set_fs_root(struct fs_struct *fs, s {struct path old_root; -write_lock (&fs->lock); +spin_lock (&fs->lock); old_root = fs->root; fs->root = *path;path_get (path); -write_unlock (&fs->lock); +spin_unlock (&fs->lock);if (old_root.dentry)path_put (&old_root); }
@@ -30,11 +30,11 @@ void set_fs_pwd(struct fs_struct *fs, st {struct path old_pwd; -write_lock (&fs->lock); +spin_lock (&fs->lock); old_pwd = fs->pwd; fs->pwd = *path;path_get (path); -write_unlock (&fs->lock); +spin_unlock (&fs->lock);if (old_pwd.dentry)path_put (&old_pwd);
@@ -51,7 +51,7 @@ void chroot_fs_refs(struct path *old_rootask_lock (p); fs = p->fs;if (fs) { -write_lock (&fs->lock); +spin_lock (&fs->lock);if (fs->root.dentry == old_root->dentry && fs->root.mnt == old_root->mnt) {path_get (new_root);
@@ -64,7 +64,7 @@ void chroot_fs_refs(struct path *old_roo fs->pwd = *new_root; count++; } -write_unlock (&fs->lock); +spin_unlock (&fs->lock); }task_unlock (p); }while_each_thread (g, p);
@@ -87,10 +87,10 @@ void exit_fs(struct task_struct *tsk)if (fs) {int kill;task_lock (tsk); -write_lock (&fs->lock); +spin_lock (&fs->lock); tsk->fs =NULL ; kill = !--fs->users; -write_unlock (&fs->lock); +spin_unlock (&fs->lock);task_unlock (tsk);if (kill)free_fs_struct (fs);
@@ -104,7 +104,7 @@ struct fs_struct *copy_fs_struct(structif (fs) { fs->users =1 ; fs->in_exec =0 ; -rwlock_init (&fs->lock); +spin_lock_init (&fs->lock); fs->umask = old->umask;get_fs_root_and_pwd (old, &fs->root, &fs->pwd); }
@@ -121,10 +121,10 @@ int unshare_fs_struct(void)return -ENOMEM ;task_lock (current); -write_lock (&fs->lock); +spin_lock (&fs->lock); kill = !--fs->users; current->fs = new_fs; -write_unlock (&fs->lock); +spin_unlock (&fs->lock);task_unlock (current);if (kill)
@@ -143,7 +143,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(current_umask);/* to be mentioned only in INIT_TASK */ struct fs_struct init_fs = { .users =1 , - .lock =__RW_LOCK_UNLOCKED (init_fs.lock), + .lock =__SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED (init_fs.lock), .umask =0022 , };
@@ -156,14 +156,14 @@ void daemonize_fs_struct(void)task_lock (current); -write_lock (&init_fs.lock); +spin_lock (&init_fs.lock); init_fs.users++; -write_unlock (&init_fs.lock); +spin_unlock (&init_fs.lock); -write_lock (&fs->lock); +spin_lock (&fs->lock); current->fs = &init_fs; kill = !--fs->users; -write_unlock (&fs->lock); +spin_unlock (&fs->lock);task_unlock (current);if (kill)
include/linux/fs_struct.h +7 -7
@@ -5,7 +5,7 @@struct fs_struct {int users; -rwlock_t lock; +spinlock_t lock;int umask;int in_exec;struct path root, pwd;
@@ -23,29 +23,29 @@ extern int unshare_fs_struct(void);static inline void get_fs_root (struct fs_struct *fs,struct path *root) { -read_lock (&fs->lock); +spin_lock (&fs->lock); *root = fs->root;path_get (root); -read_unlock (&fs->lock); +spin_unlock (&fs->lock); }static inline void get_fs_pwd (struct fs_struct *fs,struct path *pwd) { -read_lock (&fs->lock); +spin_lock (&fs->lock); *pwd = fs->pwd;path_get (pwd); -read_unlock (&fs->lock); +spin_unlock (&fs->lock); }static inline void get_fs_root_and_pwd (struct fs_struct *fs,struct path *root,struct path *pwd) { -read_lock (&fs->lock); +spin_lock (&fs->lock); *root = fs->root;path_get (root); *pwd = fs->pwd;path_get (pwd); -read_unlock (&fs->lock); +spin_unlock (&fs->lock); }#endif /* _LINUX_FS_STRUCT_H */
fs/exec.c +2 -2
@@ -1117,7 +1117,7 @@ int check_unsafe_exec(struct linux_binpr bprm->unsafe =tracehook_unsafe_exec (p); n_fs =1 ; -write_lock (&p->fs->lock); +spin_lock (&p->fs->lock);rcu_read_lock ();for (t =next_thread (p); t != p; t =next_thread (t)) {if (t->fs == p->fs)
@@ -1134,7 +1134,7 @@ int check_unsafe_exec(struct linux_binpr res =1 ; } } -write_unlock (&p->fs->lock); +spin_unlock (&p->fs->lock);return res; }
kernel/fork.c +5 -5
@@ -752,13 +752,13 @@ static int copy_fs(unsigned long clone_fstruct fs_struct *fs = current->fs;if (clone_flags &CLONE_FS ) {/* tsk->fs is already what we want */ -write_lock (&fs->lock); +spin_lock (&fs->lock);if (fs->in_exec) { -write_unlock (&fs->lock); +spin_unlock (&fs->lock);return -EAGAIN ; } fs->users++; -write_unlock (&fs->lock); +spin_unlock (&fs->lock);return 0 ; } tsk->fs =copy_fs_struct (fs);
@@ -1676,13 +1676,13 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE1(unshare, unsigned long,if (new_fs) { fs = current->fs; -write_lock (&fs->lock); +spin_lock (&fs->lock); current->fs = new_fs;if (--fs->users) new_fs =NULL ;else new_fs = fs; -write_unlock (&fs->lock); +spin_unlock (&fs->lock); }if (new_mm) {
drivers/staging/pohmelfs/path_entry.c +4 -4
@@ -44,9 +44,9 @@ int pohmelfs_construct_path_string(strucreturn -ENOENT ; } -read_lock (¤t->fs->lock); +spin_lock (¤t->fs->lock); path.mnt =mntget (current->fs->root.mnt); -read_unlock (¤t->fs->lock); +spin_unlock (¤t->fs->lock); path.dentry = d;
@@ -91,9 +91,9 @@ int pohmelfs_path_length(struct pohmelfsreturn -ENOENT ; } -read_lock (¤t->fs->lock); +spin_lock (¤t->fs->lock); root =dget (current->fs->root.dentry); -read_unlock (¤t->fs->lock); +spin_unlock (¤t->fs->lock);spin_lock (&dcache_lock);
cover first set of vfs scale patches
Does not contain inode lock patches yet, I've not
quite finished porting them yet, but even when I do I think they should get some time in linux-next and some more time for people to review them before going upstream. So let's wait for next release on those?
This patchset contains:
* some misc bits
* rwlock->spinlock for fs_struct lock
* files_lock cleanup
* tty files list bugfix
* files_lock scaling
* vfsmount_lock scaling
These should all be in good shape for review and hopefully merging, so please let me know if I need to fix anything.
Thanks,
Nick
PATCH 5/10 fs: remove extra lookup in __lookup_hash
fs: remove extra lookup in __lookup_hash
Optimize lookup for create operations, where no dentry should often be common-case. In cases where it is not, such as unlink, the added overhead is much smaller than the removed.
Also, move comments about __d_lookup racyness to the __d_lookup call site. d_lookup is intuitive; __d_lookup is what needs commenting. So in that same vein, add kerneldoc comments to __d_lookup and clean up some of the comments:
- We are interested in how the RCU lookup works here, particularly with renames. Make that explicit, and point to the document where it is explained in more detail.
- RCU is pretty standard now, and macros make implementations pretty mindless. If we want to know about RCU barrier details, we look in RCU code.
- Delete some boring legacy comments because we don't care much about how the code used to work, more about the interesting parts of how it works now. So comments about lazy LRU may be interesting, but would better be done in the LRU or refcount management code.
--- fs/dcache.c | 60 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------------- fs/namei.c | 32 ++++++++++++++++---------------- 2 files changed, 51 insertions(+), 41 deletions(-)
fs/namei.c +16 -16
@@ -735,6 +735,11 @@ static int do_lookup(struct nameidata *nreturn err; } +/* +* Rename seqlock is not required here because in the off chance +* of a false negative due to a concurrent rename, we're going to +* do the non-racy lookup, below. +*/ dentry =__d_lookup (nd->path.dentry, name);if (!dentry) goto need_lookup;
@@ -754,17 +759,13 @@ need_lookup:mutex_lock (&dir->i_mutex);/* * First re-do the cached lookup just in case it was created -* while we waited for the directory semaphore.. -* -* FIXME! This could use version numbering or similar to -* avoid unnecessary cache lookups. -* -* The "dcache_lock" is purely to protect the RCU list walker -* from concurrent renames at this point (we mustn't get false -* negatives from the RCU list walk here, unlike the optimistic -* fast walk). +* while we waited for the directory semaphore, or the first +* lookup failed due to an unrelated rename. * -* so doing d_lookup() (with seqlock), instead of lockfree __d_lookup +* This could use version numbering or similar to avoid unnecessary +* cache lookups, but then we'd have to do the first lookup in the +* non-racy way. However in the common case here, everything should +* be hot in cache, so would it be a big win? */ dentry =d_lookup (parent, name);if (likely (!dentry)) {
@@ -1136,13 +1137,12 @@ static struct dentry *__lookup_hash(stru goto out; } - dentry =__d_lookup (base, name); - -/* lockess __d_lookup may fail due to concurrent d_move() -* in some unrelated directory, so try with d_lookup +/* +* Don't bother with __d_lookup: callers are for creat as +* well as unlink, so a lot of the time it would cost +* a double lookup. */ -if (!dentry) - dentry =d_lookup (base, name); + dentry =d_lookup (base, name);if (dentry && dentry->d_op && dentry->d_op->d_revalidate) dentry =do_revalidate (dentry, nd);
fs/dcache.c +35 -25
86 lines not on this page · raw message
PATCH 10/10 fs: brlock vfsmount_lock
In reply to Nick Pigginfs: brlock vfsmount_lock
Use a brlock for the vfsmount lock. It must be taken for write whenever modifying the mount hash or associated fields, and may be taken for read when performing mount hash lookups.
A new lock is added for the mnt-id allocator, so it doesn't need to take the heavy vfsmount write-lock.
The number of atomics should remain the same for fastpath rlock cases, though code would be slightly slower due to per-cpu access. Scalability is not not be much improved in common cases yet, due to other locks (ie. dcache_lock) getting in the way. However path lookups crossing mountpoints should be one case where scalability is improved (currently requiring the global lock).
The slowpath is slower due to use of brlock. On a 64 core, 64 socket, 32 node Altix system (high latency to remote nodes), a simple umount microbenchmark (mount --bind mnt mnt2 ; umount mnt2 loop 1000 times), before this patch it took 6.8s, afterwards took 7.1s, about 5% slower.
--- fs/dcache.c | 11 +-- fs/internal.h | 5 + fs/namei.c | 7 +- fs/namespace.c | 177 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------------- fs/pnode.c | 11 ++- 5 files changed, 134 insertions(+), 77 deletions(-)
fs/dcache.c +6 -5
@@ -1935,7 +1935,7 @@ static int prepend_path(const struct patbool slash = false;int error =0 ; -spin_lock (&vfsmount_lock); +br_read_lock (vfsmount_lock);while (dentry != root->dentry || vfsmnt != root->mnt) {struct dentry * parent;
@@ -1964,7 +1964,7 @@ out:if (!error && !slash) error =prepend (buffer, buflen,"/" ,1 ); -spin_unlock (&vfsmount_lock); +br_read_unlock (vfsmount_lock);return error; global_root:
@@ -2302,11 +2302,12 @@ int path_is_under(struct path *path1, ststruct vfsmount *mnt = path1->mnt;struct dentry *dentry = path1->dentry;int res; -spin_lock (&vfsmount_lock); + +br_read_lock (vfsmount_lock);if (mnt != path2->mnt) {for (;;) {if (mnt->mnt_parent == mnt) { -spin_unlock (&vfsmount_lock); +br_read_unlock (vfsmount_lock);return 0 ; }if (mnt->mnt_parent == path2->mnt)
@@ -2316,7 +2317,7 @@ int path_is_under(struct path *path1, st dentry = mnt->mnt_mountpoint; } res =is_subdir (dentry, path2->dentry); -spin_unlock (&vfsmount_lock); +br_read_unlock (vfsmount_lock);return res; }EXPORT_SYMBOL (path_is_under);
fs/namei.c +4 -3
@@ -595,15 +595,16 @@ int follow_up(struct path *path) {struct vfsmount *parent;struct dentry *mountpoint; -spin_lock (&vfsmount_lock); + +br_read_lock (vfsmount_lock); parent = path->mnt->mnt_parent;if (parent == path->mnt) { -spin_unlock (&vfsmount_lock); +br_read_unlock (vfsmount_lock);return 0 ; }mntget (parent); mountpoint =dget (path->mnt->mnt_mountpoint); -spin_unlock (&vfsmount_lock); +br_read_unlock (vfsmount_lock);dput (path->dentry); path->dentry = mountpoint;mntput (path->mnt);
fs/namespace.c +111 -66
487 lines not on this page · raw message
fs/pnode.c +9 -2
@@ -126,6 +126,9 @@ static int do_make_slave(struct vfsmountreturn 0 ; } +/* +* vfsmount lock must be held for write +*/ void change_mnt_propagation (struct vfsmount *mnt,int type) {if (type ==MS_SHARED ) {
@@ -270,12 +273,12 @@ int propagate_mnt(struct vfsmount *dest_ prev_src_mnt = child; } out: -spin_lock (&vfsmount_lock); +br_write_lock (vfsmount_lock);while (!list_empty (&tmp_list)) { child = list_first_entry(&tmp_list, struct vfsmount, mnt_hash);umount_tree (child,0 , &umount_list); } -spin_unlock (&vfsmount_lock); +br_write_unlock (vfsmount_lock);release_mounts (&umount_list);return ret; }
@@ -296,6 +299,8 @@ static inline int do_refcount_check(stru* other mounts its parent propagates to. * Check if any of these mounts that **do not have submounts** * have more references than 'refcnt'. If so return busy. +* +* vfsmount lock must be held for read or write */ int propagate_mount_busy (struct vfsmount *mnt,int refcnt) {
@@ -353,6 +358,8 @@ static void __propagate_umount(struct vf* collect all mounts that receive propagation from the mount in @list, * and return these additional mounts in the same list. * @list: the list of mounts to be unmounted. +* +* vfsmount lock must be held for write */ int propagate_umount (struct list_head *list) {
fs/internal.h +4 -1
@@ -9,6 +9,8 @@* 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. */ +#include <linux/lglock.h> +struct super_block ;struct linux_binprm ;struct path ;
@@ -70,7 +72,8 @@ extern struct vfsmount *copy_tree(structextern void __init mnt_init (void ); -extern spinlock_t vfsmount_lock; +DECLARE_BRLOCK (vfsmount_lock); +/* * fs_struct.c
PATCH 9/10 fs: scale files_lock
In reply to Nick Pigginfs: scale files_lock
Improve scalability of files_lock by adding per-cpu, per-sb files lists, protected with an lglock. The lglock provides fast access to the per-cpu lists to add and remove files. It also provides a snapshot of all the per-cpu lists (although this is very slow).
One difficulty with this approach is that a file can be removed from the list by another CPU. We must track which per-cpu list the file is on with a new variale in the file struct (packed into a hole on 64-bit archs). Scalability could suffer if files are frequently removed from different cpu's list.
However loads with frequent removal of files imply short interval between adding and removing the files, and the scheduler attempts to avoid moving processes too far away. Also, even in the case of cross-CPU removal, the hardware has much more opportunity to parallelise cacheline transfers with N cachelines than with 1.
A worst-case test of 1 CPU allocating files subsequently being freed by N CPUs degenerates to contending on a single lock, which is no worse than before. When more than one CPU are allocating files, even if they are always freed by different CPUs, there will be more parallelism than the single-lock case.
Testing results:
On a 2 socket, 8 core opteron, I measure the number of times the lock is taken to remove the file, the number of times it is removed by the same CPU that added it, and the number of times it is removed by the same node that added it.
Booting: locks= 25049 cpu-hits= 23174 (92.5%) node-hits= 23945 (95.6%)
kbuild -j16 locks=2281913 cpu-hits=2208126 (96.8%) node-hits=2252674 (98.7%)
dbench 64 locks=4306582 cpu-hits=4287247 (99.6%) node-hits=4299527 (99.8%)
So a file is removed from the same CPU it was added by over 90% of the time. It remains within the same node 95% of the time.
Tim Chen ran some numbers for a 64 thread Nehalem system performing a compile.
throughput
2.6.34-rc2 24.5
+patch 24.9
us sys idle IO wait (in %) 2.6.34-rc2 51.25 28.25 17.25 3.25 +patch 53.75 18.5 19 8.75
So significantly less CPU time spent in kernel code, higher idle time and slightly higher throughput.
Single threaded performance difference was within the noise of microbenchmarks. That is not to say penalty does not exist, the code is larger and more memory accesses required so it will be slightly slower.
--- fs/file_table.c | 108 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------- fs/super.c | 18 ++++++++ include/linux/fs.h | 7 +++ 3 files changed, 115 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
fs/file_table.c +90 -18
@@ -20,7 +20,9 @@#include <linux/cdev.h> #include <linux/fsnotify.h> #include <linux/sysctl.h> +#include <linux/lglock.h> #include <linux/percpu_counter.h> +#include <linux/percpu.h> #include <linux/ima.h> #include <asm/atomic.h>
@@ -32,7 +34,8 @@ struct files_stat_struct files_stat = { .max_files = NR_FILE }; -static __cacheline_aligned_in_smp DEFINE_SPINLOCK (files_lock ); +DECLARE_LGLOCK (files_lglock); +DEFINE_LGLOCK (files_lglock);/* SLAB cache for file structures */ static struct kmem_cache *filp_cachep__read_mostly ;
@@ -336,30 +339,98 @@ void put_filp(struct file *file) } } +static inline int file_list_cpu (struct file *file) +{ +#ifdef CONFIG_SMP +return file->f_sb_list_cpu; +#else +return smp_processor_id (); +#endif +} + +/* helper for file_sb_list_add to reduce ifdefs */ +static inline void __file_sb_list_add (struct file *file,struct super_block *sb) +{ +struct list_head *list; +#ifdef CONFIG_SMP +int cpu; + cpu =smp_processor_id (); + file->f_sb_list_cpu = cpu; + list =per_cpu_ptr (sb->s_files, cpu); +#else + list = &sb->s_files; +#endif +list_add (&file->f_u.fu_list, list); +} + +/** +* file_sb_list_add - add a file to the sb's file list +* @file: file to add +* @sb: sb to add it to +* +* Use this function to associate a file with the superblock of the inode it +* refers to. +*/ void file_sb_list_add (struct file *file,struct super_block *sb) { -spin_lock (&files_lock); -BUG_ON (!list_empty (&file->f_u.fu_list)); -list_add (&file->f_u.fu_list, &sb->s_files); -spin_unlock (&files_lock); +lg_local_lock (files_lglock); +__file_sb_list_add (file, sb); +lg_local_unlock (files_lglock); } +/** +* file_sb_list_del - remove a file from the sb's file list +* @file: file to remove +* @sb: sb to remove it from +* +* Use this function to remove a file from its superblock. +*/ void file_sb_list_del (struct file *file) {if (!list_empty (&file->f_u.fu_list)) { -spin_lock (&files_lock); +lg_local_lock_cpu (files_lglock,file_list_cpu (file));list_del_init (&file->f_u.fu_list); -spin_unlock (&files_lock); +lg_local_unlock_cpu (files_lglock,file_list_cpu (file)); } } +#ifdef CONFIG_SMP + +/* +* These macros iterate all files on all CPUs for a given superblock. +* files_lglock must be held globally. +*/ +#define do_file_list_for_each_entry (__sb, __file) \ +{ \ + int i; \ + for_each_possible_cpu(i) { \ + struct list_head *list; \ + list = per_cpu_ptr((__sb)->s_files, i); \ + list_for_each_entry((__file), list, f_u.fu_list) + +#define while_file_list_for_each_entry \ + } \ +} + +#else + +#define do_file_list_for_each_entry (__sb, __file) \ +{ \ + struct list_head *list; \ + list = &(sb)->s_files; \ + list_for_each_entry((__file), list, f_u.fu_list) + +#define while_file_list_for_each_entry \ +} + +#endif +int fs_may_remount_ro (struct super_block *sb) {struct file *file; -/* Check that no files are currently opened for writing. */ -spin_lock (&files_lock); -list_for_each_entry (file, &sb->s_files, f_u.fu_list) { +lg_global_lock (files_lglock); +do_file_list_for_each_entry (sb, file) {struct inode *inode = file->f_path.dentry->d_inode;/* File with pending delete? */
@@ -369,11 +440,11 @@ int fs_may_remount_ro(struct super_block/* Writeable file? */ if (S_ISREG (inode->i_mode) && (file->f_mode &FMODE_WRITE )) goto too_bad; - } -spin_unlock (&files_lock); + } while_file_list_for_each_entry; +lg_global_unlock (files_lglock);return 1 ;/* Tis' cool bro. */ too_bad: -spin_unlock (&files_lock); +lg_global_unlock (files_lglock);return 0 ; }
@@ -389,8 +460,8 @@ void mark_files_ro(struct super_block *sstruct file *f; retry: -spin_lock (&files_lock); -list_for_each_entry (f, &sb->s_files, f_u.fu_list) { +lg_global_lock (files_lglock); +do_file_list_for_each_entry (sb, f) {struct vfsmount *mnt;if (!S_ISREG (f->f_path.dentry->d_inode->i_mode))continue ;
@@ -406,12 +477,12 @@ retry:file_release_write (f); mnt =mntget (f->f_path.mnt);/* This can sleep, so we can't hold the spinlock. */ -spin_unlock (&files_lock); +lg_global_unlock (files_lglock);mnt_drop_write (mnt);mntput (mnt); goto retry; - } -spin_unlock (&files_lock); + } while_file_list_for_each_entry; +lg_global_unlock (files_lglock); }void __init files_init (unsigned long mempages)
@@ -431,5 +502,6 @@ void __init files_init(unsigned long memif (files_stat.max_files <NR_FILE ) files_stat.max_files =NR_FILE ;files_defer_init (); +lg_lock_init (files_lglock);percpu_counter_init (&nr_files,0 ); }
fs/super.c +18 -0
@@ -54,7 +54,22 @@ static struct super_block *alloc_super(s s =NULL ; goto out; } +#ifdef CONFIG_SMP + s->s_files = alloc_percpu(struct list_head); +if (!s->s_files) { +security_sb_free (s); +kfree (s); + s =NULL ; + goto out; + }else { +int i; + +for_each_possible_cpu (i) +INIT_LIST_HEAD (per_cpu_ptr (s->s_files, i)); + } +#else INIT_LIST_HEAD (&s->s_files); +#endif INIT_LIST_HEAD (&s->s_instances);INIT_HLIST_HEAD (&s->s_anon);INIT_LIST_HEAD (&s->s_inodes);
@@ -108,6 +123,9 @@ out:*/ static inline void destroy_super (struct super_block *s) { +#ifdef CONFIG_SMP +free_percpu (s->s_files); +#endif security_sb_free (s);kfree (s->s_subtype);kfree (s->s_options);
include/linux/fs.h +7 -0
@@ -929,6 +929,9 @@ struct file {#define f_vfsmnt f_path.mntconst struct file_operations *f_op;spinlock_t f_lock;/* f_ep_links, f_flags, no IRQ */ +#ifdef CONFIG_SMP +int f_sb_list_cpu; +#endif atomic_long_t f_count;unsigned int f_flags;fmode_t f_mode;
@@ -1343,7 +1346,11 @@ struct super_block {struct list_head s_inodes;/* all inodes */ struct hlist_head s_anon;/* anonymous dentries for (nfs) exporting */ +#ifdef CONFIG_SMP +struct list_head __percpu *s_files; +#else struct list_head s_files; +#endif /* s_dentry_lru and s_nr_dentry_unused are protected by dcache_lock */ struct list_head s_dentry_lru;/* unused dentry lru */ int s_nr_dentry_unused;/* # of dentry on lru */
PATCH 1/10 fs: fix do_lookup false negative
In reply to Nick Pigginfs: fix do_lookup false negative
In do_lookup, if we initially find no dentry, we take the directory i_mutex and re-check the lookup. If we find a dentry there, then we revalidate it if needed. However if that revalidate asks for the dentry to be invalidated, we return -ENOENT from do_lookup. What should happen instead is an attempt to allocate and lookup a new dentry.
This is probably not noticed because it is rare. It is only reached if a concurrent create races in first (in which case, the dentry probably won't be invalidated anyway), or if the racy __d_lookup has failed due to a false-negative (which is very rare).
Fix this by removing code and have it use the normal reval path.
--- fs/namei.c | 10 ++-------- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
fs/namei.c +2 -8
@@ -709,6 +709,7 @@ static int do_lookup(struct nameidata *n dentry =__d_lookup (nd->path.dentry, name);if (!dentry) goto need_lookup; +found:if (dentry->d_op && dentry->d_op->d_revalidate) goto need_revalidate; done:
@@ -766,14 +767,7 @@ out_unlock:* we waited on the semaphore. Need to revalidate. */ mutex_unlock (&dir->i_mutex); -if (dentry->d_op && dentry->d_op->d_revalidate) { - dentry =do_revalidate (dentry, nd); -if (!dentry) - dentry =ERR_PTR (-ENOENT ); - } -if (IS_ERR (dentry)) - goto fail; - goto done; + goto found; need_revalidate: dentry =do_revalidate (dentry, nd);
Al Viro
maintainerQuoted 13 lines · Nick Piggin
Does not contain inode lock patches yet, I've not
quite finished porting them yet, but even when I do I think they should get some time in linux-next and some more time for people to review them before going upstream. So let's wait for next release on those?This patchset contains:
* some misc bits
*rwlock->spinlockforfs_structlock
*files_lockcleanup
* tty files list bugfix
*files_lockscaling
*vfsmount_lockscaling
Quoted 2 lines
These should all be in good shape for review and hopefully merging, so please let me know if I need to fix anything.
OK, I'll review that stuff and hopefully push to Linus tonight
Re: [patch 01/10] fs: fix do_lookup false negative
In reply to Nick PigginQuoted 41 lines · Nick Piggin
fs: fix
do_lookupfalse negativeIn
do_lookup, if we initially find no dentry, we take the directoryi_mutexand re-check the lookup. If we find a dentry there, then we revalidate it if needed. However if that revalidate asks for the dentry to be invalidated, we return-ENOENTfromdo_lookup. What should happen instead is an attempt to allocate and lookup a new dentry.This is probably not noticed because it is rare. It is only reached if a concurrent create races in first (in which case, the dentry probably won't be invalidated anyway), or if the racy
__d_lookuphas failed due to a false-negative (which is very rare).Fix this by removing code and have it use the normal reval path.
Signed-off-by Nick Piggin <[email protected]>--- fs/namei.c | 10 ++-------- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)Index:
linux-2.6/fs/namei.c
===================================================================fs/namei.c +1
-2@@ -709,6 +709,7 @@ static int do_lookup(struct nameidata *n dentry =__d_lookup (nd->path.dentry, name);if (!dentry) goto need_lookup; +found:if (dentry->d_op && dentry->d_op->d_revalidate) goto need_revalidate; done:@@ -766,14 +767,7 @@ out_unlock:* we waited on the semaphore. Need to revalidate. */ mutex_unlock (&dir->i_mutex); -if (dentry->d_op && dentry->d_op->d_revalidate) { - dentry =do_revalidate (dentry, nd);
fs/namei.c out_unlock: · line 773
Quoted 10 lines
fs/namei.c +1
-6-if (!dentry) - dentry =ERR_PTR (-ENOENT ); - } -if (IS_ERR (dentry)) - goto fail; - goto done; + goto found; need_revalidate: dentry =do_revalidate (dentry, nd);
Looks good.
-VAL
Re: [patch 02/10] fs: dentry allocation consolidation
In reply to Nick PigginQuoted 101 lines · Nick Piggin
fs: dentry allocation consolidation
There are 2 duplicate copies of code in dentry allocation in path lookup. Consolidate them into a single function.
Signed-off-by Nick Piggin <[email protected]>--- fs/namei.c | 70 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------------------------- 1 file changed, 33 insertions(+), 37 deletions(-)Index:
linux-2.6/fs/namei.c
===================================================================fs/namei.c +31
-32@@ -686,6 +686,35 @@ static __always_inline void follow_dotdo }/* +* Allocate a dentry with name and parent, and perform a parent +* directory ->lookup on it. Returns the new dentry, or ERR_PTR +* on error. parent->d_inode->i_mutex must be held. d_lookup must +* have verified that no child exists while under i_mutex. +*/ +static struct dentry *d_alloc_and_lookup (struct dentry *parent, +struct qstr *name,struct nameidata *nd) +{ +struct inode *inode = parent->d_inode; +struct dentry *dentry; +struct dentry *old; + +/* Don't create child dentry for a dead directory. */ +if (unlikely (IS_DEADDIR (inode))) +return ERR_PTR (-ENOENT ); + + dentry =d_alloc (parent, name); +if (unlikely (!dentry)) +return ERR_PTR (-ENOMEM ); + + old = inode->i_op->lookup (inode, dentry, nd); +if (unlikely (old)) { +dput (dentry); + dentry = old; + } +return dentry; +} + +/* * It's more convoluted than I'd like it to be, but... it's still fairly * small and for now I'd prefer to have fast path as straight as possible. * It _is_ time-critical. @@ -738,30 +767,13 @@ need_lookup:* so doing d_lookup() (with seqlock), instead of lockfree __d_lookup */ dentry =d_lookup (parent, name); -if (!dentry) { -struct dentry *new; - -/* Don't create child dentry for a dead directory. */ - dentry =ERR_PTR (-ENOENT ); -if (IS_DEADDIR (dir)) - goto out_unlock; - - new =d_alloc (parent, name); - dentry =ERR_PTR (-ENOMEM ); -if (new) { - dentry = dir->i_op->lookup (dir, new, nd); -if (dentry) -dput (new); -else - dentry = new; - } -out_unlock: +if (likely (!dentry)) { + dentry =d_alloc_and_lookup (parent, name, nd);mutex_unlock (&dir->i_mutex);if (IS_ERR (dentry)) goto fail; goto done; } -/* * Uhhuh! Nasty case: the cache was re-populated while * we waited on the semaphore. Need to revalidate. @@ -1135,24 +1147,8 @@ static struct dentry *__lookup_hash(struif (dentry && dentry->d_op && dentry->d_op->d_revalidate) dentry =do_revalidate (dentry, nd); -if (!dentry) { -struct dentry *new; - -/* Don't create child dentry for a dead directory. */ - dentry =ERR_PTR (-ENOENT ); -if (IS_DEADDIR (inode)) - goto out; - - new =d_alloc (base, name); - dentry =ERR_PTR (-ENOMEM ); -if (!new) - goto out; - dentry = inode->i_op->lookup (inode, new, nd);
fs/namei.c static struct dentry *__lookup_hash(stru · line 1154
Quoted 10 lines
fs/namei.c +2
-5-if (!dentry) - dentry = new; -else -dput (new); - } +if (!dentry) + dentry =d_alloc_and_lookup (base, name, nd); out:return dentry; }
Looks good.
-VAL
Re: [patch 03/10] apparmor: use task path helpers
In reply to Nick PigginQuoted 28 lines · Nick Piggin
apparmor: use task path helpers
Signed-off-by Nick Piggin <[email protected]>---
BTW, argh!dcache_lock! Why does everything have to invent its own reverse path lookup crud and hide it away in its own code? Also, admire the rest of this beautiful function.--- security/apparmor/path.c | 9 ++------- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)Index:
linux-2.6/security/apparmor/path.c
===================================================================security/apparmor/path.c +1
-4@@ -62,19 +62,14 @@ static int d_namespace_path(struct pathint deleted, connected;int error =0 ; -/* Get the root we want to resolve too */ +/* Get the root we want to resolve too, released below */ if (flags &PATH_CHROOT_REL ) {/* resolve paths relative to chroot */ -read_lock (¤t->fs->lock); - root = current->fs->root; -/* released below */
security/apparmor/path.c static int d_namespace_path(struct path · line 74
Quoted 10 lines
security/apparmor/path.c +1
-3-path_get (&root); -read_unlock (¤t->fs->lock); +get_fs_root (current->fs, &root); }else {/* resolve paths relative to namespace */ root.mnt = current->nsproxy->mnt_ns->root; root.dentry = root.mnt->mnt_root; -/* released below */ path_get (&root); }
Gosh, maybe this VFS stuff isn't as hard as I thought! This one's easy to review too. :)
Looks good.
-VAL
Re: [patch 01/10] fs: fix do_lookup false negative
In reply to Nick PigginQuoted 8 lines · Nick Piggin
fs: fix
do_lookupfalse negativeIn
do_lookup, if we initially find no dentry, we take the directoryi_mutexand re-check the lookup. If we find a dentry there, then we revalidate it if needed. However if that revalidate asks for the dentry to be invalidated, we return-ENOENTfromdo_lookup. What should happen instead is an attempt to allocate and lookup a new dentry.
Quoted 8 lines
This is probably not noticed because it is rare. It is only reached if a concurrent create races in first (in which case, the dentry probably won't be invalidated anyway), or if the racy
__d_lookuphas failed due to a false-negative (which is very rare).Fix this by removing code and have it use the normal reval path.
Signed-off-by Nick Piggin <[email protected]>
FWIW, I was hitting this bug with Ceph a while back and proposed a different fix for it: instead of dropping the lock, my patch did the revalidation under i_mutex. Unfortunately that conflicts with autofs shenanigans and is still sitting in Al's tree awaiting some resolution there, see
This approach is simpler and looks okay to me.
sage
Quoted 41 lines
--- fs/namei.c | 10 ++-------- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)Index:
linux-2.6/fs/namei.c
===================================================================fs/namei.c +2
-9@@ -709,6 +709,7 @@ static int do_lookup(struct nameidata *n dentry =__d_lookup (nd->path.dentry, name);if (!dentry) goto need_lookup; +found:if (dentry->d_op && dentry->d_op->d_revalidate) goto need_revalidate; done:@@ -766,14 +767,7 @@ out_unlock:* we waited on the semaphore. Need to revalidate. */ mutex_unlock (&dir->i_mutex); -if (dentry->d_op && dentry->d_op->d_revalidate) { - dentry =do_revalidate (dentry, nd); -if (!dentry) - dentry =ERR_PTR (-ENOENT ); - } -if (IS_ERR (dentry)) - goto fail; - goto done; + goto found; need_revalidate: dentry =do_revalidate (dentry, nd); --To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [patch 04/10] fs: fs_struct rwlock to spinlock
In reply to Nick PigginQuoted 260 lines · Nick Piggin
fs:
fs_structrwlock to spinlockstruct fs_struct.lock is an rwlock with the read-side used to protect root and pwd members while taking references to them. Taking a reference to a path typically requires just 2 atomic ops, so the critical section is very small. Parallel read-side operations would have cacheline contention on the lock, the dentry, and the vfsmount cachelines, so the rwlock is unlikely to ever give a real parallelism increase.
Replace it with a spinlock to avoid one or two atomic operations in typical path lookup fastpath.
Signed-off-by Nick Piggin <[email protected]>--- drivers/staging/pohmelfs/path_entry.c | 8 ++++---- fs/exec.c | 4 ++-- fs/fs_struct.c | 32 ++++++++++++++++---------------- include/linux/fs_struct.h | 14 +++++++------- kernel/fork.c | 10 +++++----- 5 files changed, 34 insertions(+), 34 deletions(-)Index:
linux-2.6/fs/fs_struct.c
===================================================================fs/fs_struct.c +16
-16@@ -13,11 +13,11 @@ void set_fs_root(struct fs_struct *fs, s {struct path old_root; -write_lock (&fs->lock); +spin_lock (&fs->lock); old_root = fs->root; fs->root = *path;path_get (path); -write_unlock (&fs->lock); +spin_unlock (&fs->lock);if (old_root.dentry)path_put (&old_root); }@@ -30,11 +30,11 @@ void set_fs_pwd(struct fs_struct *fs, st {struct path old_pwd; -write_lock (&fs->lock); +spin_lock (&fs->lock); old_pwd = fs->pwd; fs->pwd = *path;path_get (path); -write_unlock (&fs->lock); +spin_unlock (&fs->lock);if (old_pwd.dentry)path_put (&old_pwd);@@ -51,7 +51,7 @@ void chroot_fs_refs(struct path *old_rootask_lock (p); fs = p->fs;if (fs) { -write_lock (&fs->lock); +spin_lock (&fs->lock);if (fs->root.dentry == old_root->dentry && fs->root.mnt == old_root->mnt) {path_get (new_root);@@ -64,7 +64,7 @@ void chroot_fs_refs(struct path *old_roo fs->pwd = *new_root; count++; } -write_unlock (&fs->lock); +spin_unlock (&fs->lock); }task_unlock (p); }while_each_thread (g, p);@@ -87,10 +87,10 @@ void exit_fs(struct task_struct *tsk)if (fs) {int kill;task_lock (tsk); -write_lock (&fs->lock); +spin_lock (&fs->lock); tsk->fs =NULL ; kill = !--fs->users; -write_unlock (&fs->lock); +spin_unlock (&fs->lock);task_unlock (tsk);if (kill)free_fs_struct (fs);@@ -104,7 +104,7 @@ struct fs_struct *copy_fs_struct(structif (fs) { fs->users =1 ; fs->in_exec =0 ; -rwlock_init (&fs->lock); +spin_lock_init (&fs->lock); fs->umask = old->umask;get_fs_root_and_pwd (old, &fs->root, &fs->pwd); }@@ -121,10 +121,10 @@ int unshare_fs_struct(void)return -ENOMEM ;task_lock (current); -write_lock (&fs->lock); +spin_lock (&fs->lock); kill = !--fs->users; current->fs = new_fs; -write_unlock (&fs->lock); +spin_unlock (&fs->lock);task_unlock (current);if (kill)@@ -143,7 +143,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(current_umask);/* to be mentioned only in INIT_TASK */ struct fs_struct init_fs = { .users =1 , - .lock =__RW_LOCK_UNLOCKED (init_fs.lock), + .lock =__SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED (init_fs.lock), .umask =0022 , };@@ -156,14 +156,14 @@ void daemonize_fs_struct(void)task_lock (current); -write_lock (&init_fs.lock); +spin_lock (&init_fs.lock); init_fs.users++; -write_unlock (&init_fs.lock); +spin_unlock (&init_fs.lock); -write_lock (&fs->lock); +spin_lock (&fs->lock); current->fs = &init_fs; kill = !--fs->users; -write_unlock (&fs->lock); +spin_unlock (&fs->lock);task_unlock (current);if (kill)Index:
linux-2.6/include/linux/fs_struct.h
===================================================================include/linux/fs_struct.h +7
-7@@ -5,7 +5,7 @@struct fs_struct {int users; -rwlock_t lock; +spinlock_t lock;int umask;int in_exec;struct path root, pwd;@@ -23,29 +23,29 @@ extern int unshare_fs_struct(void);static inline void get_fs_root (struct fs_struct *fs,struct path *root) { -read_lock (&fs->lock); +spin_lock (&fs->lock); *root = fs->root;path_get (root); -read_unlock (&fs->lock); +spin_unlock (&fs->lock); }static inline void get_fs_pwd (struct fs_struct *fs,struct path *pwd) { -read_lock (&fs->lock); +spin_lock (&fs->lock); *pwd = fs->pwd;path_get (pwd); -read_unlock (&fs->lock); +spin_unlock (&fs->lock); }static inline void get_fs_root_and_pwd (struct fs_struct *fs,struct path *root,struct path *pwd) { -read_lock (&fs->lock); +spin_lock (&fs->lock); *root = fs->root;path_get (root); *pwd = fs->pwd;path_get (pwd); -read_unlock (&fs->lock); +spin_unlock (&fs->lock); }#endif /* _LINUX_FS_STRUCT_H */ Index:
linux-2.6/fs/exec.c
===================================================================fs/exec.c +2
-2@@ -1117,7 +1117,7 @@ int check_unsafe_exec(struct linux_binpr bprm->unsafe =tracehook_unsafe_exec (p); n_fs =1 ; -write_lock (&p->fs->lock); +spin_lock (&p->fs->lock);rcu_read_lock ();for (t =next_thread (p); t != p; t =next_thread (t)) {if (t->fs == p->fs)@@ -1134,7 +1134,7 @@ int check_unsafe_exec(struct linux_binpr res =1 ; } } -write_unlock (&p->fs->lock); +spin_unlock (&p->fs->lock);return res; }Index:
linux-2.6/kernel/fork.c
===================================================================kernel/fork.c +5
-5@@ -752,13 +752,13 @@ static int copy_fs(unsigned long clone_fstruct fs_struct *fs = current->fs;if (clone_flags &CLONE_FS ) {/* tsk->fs is already what we want */ -write_lock (&fs->lock); +spin_lock (&fs->lock);if (fs->in_exec) { -write_unlock (&fs->lock); +spin_unlock (&fs->lock);return -EAGAIN ; } fs->users++; -write_unlock (&fs->lock); +spin_unlock (&fs->lock);return 0 ; } tsk->fs =copy_fs_struct (fs);@@ -1676,13 +1676,13 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE1(unshare, unsigned long,if (new_fs) { fs = current->fs; -write_lock (&fs->lock); +spin_lock (&fs->lock); current->fs = new_fs;if (--fs->users) new_fs =NULL ;else new_fs = fs; -write_unlock (&fs->lock); +spin_unlock (&fs->lock); }if (new_mm) {Index:
linux-2.6/drivers/staging/pohmelfs/path_entry.c
===================================================================drivers/staging/pohmelfs/path_entry.c +2
-2@@ -44,9 +44,9 @@ int pohmelfs_construct_path_string(strucreturn -ENOENT ; } -read_lock (¤t->fs->lock); +spin_lock (¤t->fs->lock); path.mnt =mntget (current->fs->root.mnt); -read_unlock (¤t->fs->lock); +spin_unlock (¤t->fs->lock); path.dentry = d;
drivers/staging/pohmelfs/path_entry.c int pohmelfs_path_length(struct pohmelfs · line 98
Quoted 10 lines
drivers/staging/pohmelfs/path_entry.c +2
-2@@ -91,9 +91,9 @@ int pohmelfs_path_length(struct pohmelfsreturn -ENOENT ; } -read_lock (¤t->fs->lock); +spin_lock (¤t->fs->lock); root =dget (current->fs->root.dentry); -read_unlock (¤t->fs->lock); +spin_unlock (¤t->fs->lock);spin_lock (&dcache_lock);
Your reasoning makes sense to me. Shared reader access seems very unlikely whereas the cost of taking the lock is certain.
-VAL
Re: [patch 01/10] fs: fix do_lookup false negative
In reply to Nick PigginQuoted 8 lines · Nick Piggin
fs: fix
do_lookupfalse negativeIn
do_lookup, if we initially find no dentry, we take the directoryi_mutexand re-check the lookup. If we find a dentry there, then we revalidate it if needed. However if that revalidate asks for the dentry to be invalidated, we return-ENOENTfromdo_lookup. What should happen instead is an attempt to allocate and lookup a new dentry.
Quoted 6 lines
This is probably not noticed because it is rare. It is only reached if a concurrent create races in first (in which case, the dentry probably won't be invalidated anyway), or if the racy
__d_lookuphas failed due to a false-negative (which is very rare).Fix this by removing code and have it use the normal reval path.
Looks good, but a comment would be good.
-Andi
Signature · 1 line
[email protected] -- Speaking for myself only.
Re: [patch 05/10] fs: remove extra lookup in __lookup_hash
In reply to Nick PigginQuoted 4 lines · Nick Piggin
- Delete some boring legacy comments because we don't care much about how the code used to work, more about the interesting parts of how it works now. So comments about lazy LRU may be interesting, but would better be done in the LRU or refcount management code.
It would have been nice if you had done all the comment changes in another patch.
As far as I can see this is only a two liner and it looks obviously correct.
As a quick experiment I set a systemtap probe for this on my workstation
global first, second
probe kernel.function("*@fs/namei.c:1143") { first++ } probe kernel.function("*@fs/namei.c:1149") { second++ } probe end { printf("first %d, second %d\n", first, second) }
and did a quick kernel build, resulting in:
first 22753, second 22753
So yes it looks like the hit rate is about zero for the first case and the change is good.
-Andi
Signature · 1 line
[email protected] -- Speaking for myself only.
Re: [patch 10/10] fs: brlock vfsmount_lock
In reply to Nick PigginNick Piggin <[email protected]> writes:
BTW one way to make the slow path faster would be to start sharing per cpu locks inside a core on SMT at least. The same cores have the same caches and sharing cache lines is free. That would cut it in half on a 2x HT system.
fs/namespace.c line 46
Quoted 5 lines
fs/namespace.c +1
-1-static int event;static DEFINE_IDA (mnt_id_ida);static DEFINE_IDA (mnt_group_ida); +static DEFINE_SPINLOCK (mnt_id_lock);
Can you add a scope comment to that lock?
Quoted 7 lines
fs/namespace.c +0
-3@@ -623,39 +653,43 @@ static inline void __mntput(struct vfsmovoid mntput_no_expire (struct vfsmount *mnt) { repeat: -if (atomic_dec_and_lock (&mnt->mnt_count, &vfsmount_lock)) { -if (likely (!mnt->mnt_pinned)) { -spin_unlock (&vfsmount_lock);
fs/namespace.c static inline void __mntput(struct vfsmo · line 657
Quoted 10 lines
fs/namespace.c +2
-8-__mntput (mnt); -return ; - } -atomic_add (mnt->mnt_pinned +1 , &mnt->mnt_count); - mnt->mnt_pinned =0 ; -spin_unlock (&vfsmount_lock); -acct_auto_close_mnt (mnt); - goto repeat; +if (atomic_add_unless (&mnt->mnt_count,-1 ,1 )) +return ;
Hmm that's a unrelated change?
The rest looks all good and quite straight forward
-Andi
Signature · 1 line
[email protected] -- Speaking for myself only.
Re: [patch 05/10] fs: remove extra lookup in __lookup_hash
In reply to Nick PigginQuoted 170 lines · Nick Piggin
fs: remove extra lookup in
__lookup_hashOptimize lookup for create operations, where no dentry should often be common-case. In cases where it is not, such as unlink, the added overhead is much smaller than the removed.
Also, move comments about
__d_lookupracyness to the__d_lookupcall site.d_lookupis intuitive;__d_lookupis what needs commenting. So in that same vein, add kerneldoc comments to__d_lookupand clean up some of the comments:- We are interested in how the RCU lookup works here, particularly with renames. Make that explicit, and point to the document where it is explained in more detail.
- RCU is pretty standard now, and macros make implementations pretty mindless. If we want to know about RCU barrier details, we look in RCU code.
- Delete some boring legacy comments because we don't care much about how the code used to work, more about the interesting parts of how it works now. So comments about lazy LRU may be interesting, but would better be done in the LRU or refcount management code.Signed-off-by Nick Piggin <[email protected]>--- fs/dcache.c | 60 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------------- fs/namei.c | 32 ++++++++++++++++---------------- 2 files changed, 51 insertions(+), 41 deletions(-)Index:
linux-2.6/fs/namei.c
===================================================================fs/namei.c +16
-16@@ -735,6 +735,11 @@ static int do_lookup(struct nameidata *nreturn err; } +/* +* Rename seqlock is not required here because in the off chance +* of a false negative due to a concurrent rename, we're going to +* do the non-racy lookup, below. +*/ dentry =__d_lookup (nd->path.dentry, name);if (!dentry) goto need_lookup;@@ -754,17 +759,13 @@ need_lookup:mutex_lock (&dir->i_mutex);/* * First re-do the cached lookup just in case it was created -* while we waited for the directory semaphore.. -* -* FIXME! This could use version numbering or similar to -* avoid unnecessary cache lookups. -* -* The "dcache_lock" is purely to protect the RCU list walker -* from concurrent renames at this point (we mustn't get false -* negatives from the RCU list walk here, unlike the optimistic -* fast walk). +* while we waited for the directory semaphore, or the first +* lookup failed due to an unrelated rename. * -* so doing d_lookup() (with seqlock), instead of lockfree __d_lookup +* This could use version numbering or similar to avoid unnecessary +* cache lookups, but then we'd have to do the first lookup in the +* non-racy way. However in the common case here, everything should +* be hot in cache, so would it be a big win? */ dentry =d_lookup (parent, name);if (likely (!dentry)) {@@ -1136,13 +1137,12 @@ static struct dentry *__lookup_hash(stru goto out; } - dentry =__d_lookup (base, name); - -/* lockess __d_lookup may fail due to concurrent d_move() -* in some unrelated directory, so try with d_lookup +/* +* Don't bother with __d_lookup: callers are for creat as +* well as unlink, so a lot of the time it would cost +* a double lookup. */ -if (!dentry) - dentry =d_lookup (base, name); + dentry =d_lookup (base, name);if (dentry && dentry->d_op && dentry->d_op->d_revalidate) dentry =do_revalidate (dentry, nd);Index:
linux-2.6/fs/dcache.c
===================================================================fs/dcache.c +33
-23@@ -1332,31 +1332,13 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(d_add_ci);* d_lookup - search for a dentry * @parent: parent dentry * @name: qstr of name we wish to find +* Returns: dentry, or NULL * -* Searches the children of the parent dentry for the name in question. If -* the dentry is found its reference count is incremented and the dentry -* is returned. The caller must use dput to free the entry when it has -* finished using it. %NULL is returned on failure. -* -* __d_lookup is dcache_lock free. The hash list is protected using RCU. -* Memory barriers are used while updating and doing lockless traversal. -* To avoid races with d_move while rename is happening, d_lock is used. -* -* Overflows in memcmp(), while d_move, are avoided by keeping the length -* and name pointer in one structure pointed by d_qstr. -* -* rcu_read_lock() and rcu_read_unlock() are used to disable preemption while -* lookup is going on. -* -* The dentry unused LRU is not updated even if lookup finds the required dentry -* in there. It is updated in places such as prune_dcache, shrink_dcache_sb, -* select_parent and __dget_locked. This laziness saves lookup from dcache_lock -* acquisition. -* -* d_lookup() is protected against the concurrent renames in some unrelated -* directory using the seqlockt_t rename_lock. +* d_lookup searches the children of the parent dentry for the name in +* question. If the dentry is found its reference count is incremented and the +* dentry is returned. The caller must use dput to free the entry when it has +* finished using it. %NULL is returned if the dentry does not exist. */ -struct dentry *d_lookup (struct dentry * parent,struct qstr * name) {struct dentry * dentry =NULL ;@@ -1372,6 +1354,21 @@ struct dentry * d_lookup(struct dentry * }EXPORT_SYMBOL (d_lookup); +/* +* __d_lookup - search for a dentry (racy) +* @parent: parent dentry +* @name: qstr of name we wish to find +* Returns: dentry, or NULL +* +* __d_lookup is like d_lookup, however it may (rarely) return a +* false-negative result due to unrelated rename activity. +* +* __d_lookup is slightly faster by avoiding rename_lock read seqlock, +* however it must be used carefully, eg. with a following d_lookup in +* the case of failure. +* +* __d_lookup callers must be commented. +*/ struct dentry *__d_lookup (struct dentry * parent,struct qstr * name) {unsigned int len = name->len;@@ -1382,6 +1379,19 @@ struct dentry * __d_lookup(struct dentrystruct hlist_node *node;struct dentry *dentry; +/* +* The hash list is protected using RCU. +* +* Take d_lock when comparing a candidate dentry, to avoid races +* with d_move(). +* +* It is possible that concurrent renames can mess up our list +* walk here and result in missing our dentry, resulting in the +* false-negative result. d_lookup() protects against concurrent +* renames using rename_lock seqlock. +* +* See Documentation/vfs/dcache-locking.txt for more details. +*/ rcu_read_lock ();hlist_for_each_entry_rcu (dentry, node, head, d_hash) {
fs/dcache.c struct dentry * __d_lookup(struct dentry · line 1413
Quoted 10 lines
fs/dcache.c +2
-2@@ -1396,8 +1406,8 @@ struct dentry * __d_lookup(struct dentry/* * Recheck the dentry after taking the lock - d_move may have -* changed things. Don't bother checking the hash because we're -* about to compare the whole name anyway. +* changed things. Don't bother checking the hash because +* we're about to compare the whole name anyway. */ if (dentry->d_parent != parent) goto next;
Jan Blunck (cc'd) wrote a similar patch that I ended up dropping from the union mount queue just to make my life easier.
This makes sense; it's far more likely that the dentry doesn't exist than that we collided with a d_move(), in which case the second locked lookup is totally wasted effort. And the seqlock is low cost anyway.
-VAL
Re: [patch 06/10] fs: cleanup files_lock locking
In reply to Nick PigginQuoted 311 lines · Nick Piggin
fs: cleanup
files_locklockingLock
tty_fileswith a new spinlock,tty_files_lock; provide helpers to manipulate the per-sb files list; unexport thefiles_lockspinlock.Cc Christoph Hellwig <[email protected]>Cc Alan Cox <[email protected]>Acked-by Andi Kleen <[email protected]>Signed-off-by Nick Piggin <[email protected]>--- drivers/char/pty.c | 6 +++++- drivers/char/tty_io.c | 26 ++++++++++++++++++-------- fs/file_table.c | 42 ++++++++++++++++++------------------------ fs/open.c | 4 ++-- include/linux/fs.h | 7 ++----- include/linux/tty.h | 1 + security/selinux/hooks.c | 4 ++-- 7 files changed, 48 insertions(+), 42 deletions(-)Index:
linux-2.6/security/selinux/hooks.c
===================================================================security/selinux/hooks.c +2
-2@@ -2170,7 +2170,7 @@ static inline void flush_unauthorized_fi tty =get_current_tty ();if (tty) { -file_list_lock (); +spin_lock (&tty_files_lock);if (!list_empty (&tty->tty_files)) {struct inode *inode;@@ -2186,7 +2186,7 @@ static inline void flush_unauthorized_fi drop_tty =1 ; } } -file_list_unlock (); +spin_unlock (&tty_files_lock);tty_kref_put (tty); }/* Reset controlling tty. */ Index:
linux-2.6/drivers/char/pty.c
===================================================================drivers/char/pty.c +5
-1@@ -676,7 +676,11 @@ static int ptmx_open(struct inode *inodeset_bit (TTY_PTY_LOCK , &tty->flags);/* LOCK THE SLAVE */ filp->private_data = tty; -file_move (filp, &tty->tty_files); + +file_sb_list_del (filp);/* __dentry_open has put it on the sb list */ +spin_lock (&tty_files_lock); +list_add (&filp->f_u.fu_list, &tty->tty_files); +spin_unlock (&tty_files_lock); retval =devpts_pty_new (inode, tty->link);if (retval)Index:
linux-2.6/drivers/char/tty_io.c
===================================================================drivers/char/tty_io.c +18
-8@@ -136,6 +136,9 @@ LIST_HEAD(tty_drivers); /* linked listDEFINE_MUTEX (tty_mutex);EXPORT_SYMBOL (tty_mutex); +/* Spinlock to protect the tty->tty_files list */ +DEFINE_SPINLOCK (tty_files_lock); +static ssize_t tty_read (struct file *,char __user *,size_t ,loff_t *);static ssize_t tty_write (struct file *,const char __user *,size_t ,loff_t *); ssize_t redirected_tty_write(struct file *, const char __user *,@@ -235,11 +238,11 @@ static int check_tty_count(struct tty_ststruct list_head *p;int count =0 ; -file_list_lock (); +spin_lock (&tty_files_lock);list_for_each (p, &tty->tty_files) { count++; } -file_list_unlock (); +spin_unlock (&tty_files_lock);if (tty->driver->type ==TTY_DRIVER_TYPE_PTY && tty->driver->subtype ==PTY_TYPE_SLAVE && tty->link && tty->link->count)@@ -519,7 +522,7 @@ void __tty_hangup(struct tty_struct *ttyworkqueue with the lock held */ check_tty_count (tty,"tty_hangup" ); -file_list_lock (); +spin_lock (&tty_files_lock);/* This breaks for file handles being sent over AF_UNIX sockets ? */ list_for_each_entry (filp, &tty->tty_files, f_u.fu_list) {if (filp->f_op->write == redirected_tty_write)@@ -530,7 +533,7 @@ void __tty_hangup(struct tty_struct *tty__tty_fasync (-1 , filp,0 );/* can't block */ filp->f_op = &hung_up_tty_fops; } -file_list_unlock (); +spin_unlock (&tty_files_lock);tty_ldisc_hangup (tty);@@ -1424,9 +1427,9 @@ static void release_one_tty(struct work_tty_driver_kref_put (driver);module_put (driver->owner); -file_list_lock (); +spin_lock (&tty_files_lock);list_del_init (&tty->tty_files); -file_list_unlock (); +spin_unlock (&tty_files_lock);put_pid (tty->pgrp);put_pid (tty->session);@@ -1671,7 +1674,10 @@ int tty_release(struct inode *inode, str* - do_tty_hangup no longer sees this file descriptor as * something that needs to be handled for hangups. */ -file_kill (filp); +spin_lock (&tty_files_lock); +BUG_ON (list_empty (&filp->f_u.fu_list)); +list_del_init (&filp->f_u.fu_list); +spin_unlock (&tty_files_lock); filp->private_data =NULL ;/* @@ -1840,7 +1846,11 @@ got_driver: } filp->private_data = tty; -file_move (filp, &tty->tty_files); +BUG_ON (list_empty (&filp->f_u.fu_list)); +file_sb_list_del (filp);/* __dentry_open has put it on the sb list */ +spin_lock (&tty_files_lock); +list_add (&filp->f_u.fu_list, &tty->tty_files); +spin_unlock (&tty_files_lock);check_tty_count (tty,"tty_open" );if (tty->driver->type ==TTY_DRIVER_TYPE_PTY && tty->driver->subtype ==PTY_TYPE_MASTER )Index:
linux-2.6/fs/file_table.c
===================================================================fs/file_table.c +18
-24@@ -32,8 +32,7 @@ struct files_stat_struct files_stat = { .max_files = NR_FILE }; -/* public. Not pretty! */ -__cacheline_aligned_in_smp DEFINE_SPINLOCK (files_lock ); +static __cacheline_aligned_in_smp DEFINE_SPINLOCK (files_lock );/* SLAB cache for file structures */ static struct kmem_cache *filp_cachep__read_mostly ;@@ -249,7 +248,7 @@ static void __fput(struct file *file)cdev_put (inode->i_cdev);fops_put (file->f_op);put_pid (file->f_owner.pid); -file_kill (file); +file_sb_list_del (file);if (file->f_mode &FMODE_WRITE )drop_file_write_access (file); file->f_path.dentry =NULL ;@@ -328,31 +327,29 @@ struct file *fget_light(unsigned int fd,return file; } -void put_filp (struct file *file) {if (atomic_long_dec_and_test (&file->f_count)) {security_file_free (file); -file_kill (file); +file_sb_list_del (file);file_free (file); } } -void file_move (struct file *file,struct list_head *list) +void file_sb_list_add (struct file *file,struct super_block *sb) { -if (!list) -return ; -file_list_lock (); -list_move (&file->f_u.fu_list, list); -file_list_unlock (); +spin_lock (&files_lock); +BUG_ON (!list_empty (&file->f_u.fu_list)); +list_add (&file->f_u.fu_list, &sb->s_files); +spin_unlock (&files_lock); } -void file_kill (struct file *file) +void file_sb_list_del (struct file *file) {if (!list_empty (&file->f_u.fu_list)) { -file_list_lock (); +spin_lock (&files_lock);list_del_init (&file->f_u.fu_list); -file_list_unlock (); +spin_unlock (&files_lock); } }@@ -361,7 +358,7 @@ int fs_may_remount_ro(struct super_blockstruct file *file;/* Check that no files are currently opened for writing. */ -file_list_lock (); +spin_lock (&files_lock);list_for_each_entry (file, &sb->s_files, f_u.fu_list) {struct inode *inode = file->f_path.dentry->d_inode;@@ -373,10 +370,10 @@ int fs_may_remount_ro(struct super_blockif (S_ISREG (inode->i_mode) && (file->f_mode &FMODE_WRITE )) goto too_bad; } -file_list_unlock (); +spin_unlock (&files_lock);return 1 ;/* Tis' cool bro. */ too_bad: -file_list_unlock (); +spin_unlock (&files_lock);return 0 ; }@@ -392,7 +389,7 @@ void mark_files_ro(struct super_block *sstruct file *f; retry: -file_list_lock (); +spin_lock (&files_lock);list_for_each_entry (f, &sb->s_files, f_u.fu_list) {struct vfsmount *mnt;if (!S_ISREG (f->f_path.dentry->d_inode->i_mode))@@ -408,16 +405,13 @@ retry:continue ;file_release_write (f); mnt =mntget (f->f_path.mnt); -file_list_unlock (); -/* -* This can sleep, so we can't hold -* the file_list_lock() spinlock. -*/ +/* This can sleep, so we can't hold the spinlock. */ +spin_unlock (&files_lock);mnt_drop_write (mnt);mntput (mnt); goto retry; } -file_list_unlock (); +spin_unlock (&files_lock); }void __init files_init (unsigned long mempages)Index:
linux-2.6/fs/open.c
===================================================================fs/open.c +2
-2@@ -675,7 +675,7 @@ static struct file *__dentry_open(struct f->f_path.mnt = mnt; f->f_pos =0 ; f->f_op =fops_get (inode->i_fop); -file_move (f, &inode->i_sb->s_files); +file_sb_list_add (f, inode->i_sb); error =security_dentry_open (f, cred);if (error)@@ -721,7 +721,7 @@ cleanup_all:mnt_drop_write (mnt); } } -file_kill (f); +file_sb_list_del (f); f->f_path.dentry =NULL ; f->f_path.mnt =NULL ; cleanup_file:Index:
linux-2.6/include/linux/fs.h
===================================================================include/linux/fs.h +2
-5@@ -953,9 +953,6 @@ struct file {unsigned long f_mnt_write_state;#endif }; -extern spinlock_t files_lock; -#define file_list_lock () spin_lock(&files_lock); -#define file_list_unlock () spin_unlock(&files_lock);#define get_file (x) atomic_long_inc(&(x)->f_count)#define fput_atomic (x) atomic_long_add_unless(&(x)->f_count, -1, 1)@@ -2197,8 +2194,8 @@ static inline void insert_inode_hash(str__insert_inode_hash (inode, inode->i_ino); } -extern void file_move (struct file *f,struct list_head *list); -extern void file_kill (struct file *f); +extern void file_sb_list_add (struct file *f,struct super_block *sb); +extern void file_sb_list_del (struct file *f);#ifdef CONFIG_BLOCK extern void submit_bio (int ,struct bio *);extern int bdev_read_only (struct block_device *);Index:
linux-2.6/include/linux/tty.h
===================================================================
include/linux/tty.h extern struct tty_struct *tty_pair_get_t · line 476
Quoted 7 lines
include/linux/tty.h +1
-0@@ -470,6 +470,7 @@ extern struct tty_struct *tty_pair_get_textern struct tty_struct *tty_pair_get_pty (struct tty_struct *tty);extern struct mutex tty_mutex; +extern spinlock_t tty_files_lock;extern void tty_write_unlock (struct tty_struct *tty);extern int tty_write_lock (struct tty_struct *tty,int ndelay);
Looks good.
-VAL
Re: [patch 05/10] fs: remove extra lookup in __lookup_hash
In reply to Andi KleenQuoted 7 lines · Andi Kleen
and did a quick kernel build, resulting in:
first 22753, second 22753
So yes it looks like the hit rate is about zero for the first case and the change is good.
I was informed that my script was buggy, here are updated numbers.
hits: 22899, cycles: 59min/1771avg/223268max
hits: 2784, cycles: 88min/421avg/1110max
So it seems to be still rather uncommon, but not as uncommon as the first output suggested.
-Andi
Signature · 1 line
[email protected] -- Speaking for myself only.
Re: [patch 04/10] fs: fs_struct rwlock to spinlock
In reply to Valerie AuroraQuoted 11 lines · Valerie Aurora
drivers/staging/pohmelfs/path_entry.c int pohmelfs_path_length(struct pohmelfs · line 98
Quoted 7 lines · Nick Piggin
drivers/staging/pohmelfs/path_entry.c +2
-2-read_lock (¤t->fs->lock); +spin_lock (¤t->fs->lock); root =dget (current->fs->root.dentry); -read_unlock (¤t->fs->lock); +spin_unlock (¤t->fs->lock);spin_lock (&dcache_lock);Your reasoning makes sense to me. Shared reader access seems very unlikely whereas the cost of taking the lock is certain.
Yes, shared reader will only help if we have multiple threads inside the critical section at the same time, and if they can actually get any extra parallelism (which they can't, because all they're doing here is just hitting another contended cacheline).
I doubt this will change scalability at all, but it will improve single threaded performance a little bit.
With the store-free path walk, I can actually do some tricks to entirely remove the fs->lock spinlock in the common case here (using a seqlock instead). Combined with avoiding refcounts to the cwd, so it avoids all the contention between threads.
Re: [patch 10/10] fs: brlock vfsmount_lock
In reply to Andi KleenQuoted 6 lines · Andi Kleen
Nick Piggin <[email protected]> writes:
BTW one way to make the slow path faster would be to start sharing per cpu locks inside a core on SMT at least. The same cores have the same caches and sharing cache lines is free. That would cut it in half on a 2x HT system.
Yes it's possible. brlock code is encapsulated, so you could experiment. One problem is that vfsmount lock gets held for read for a relatively long time in the store-free path walk patches. So you could get multiple threads contending on it.
Quoted 8 lines
fs/namespace.c line 46
Quoted 6 lines
fs/namespace.c +1
-1-static int event;static DEFINE_IDA (mnt_id_ida);static DEFINE_IDA (mnt_group_ida); +static DEFINE_SPINLOCK (mnt_id_lock);Can you add a scope comment to that lock?
It protects mnt_id_ida; I should have explicitly commented that. I'll put a patch to do that at the head of my next queue to submit.
Thanks for reviewing.
Quoted 12 lines
Quoted 12 lines
fs/namespace.c +0
-7@@ -623,39 +653,43 @@ static inline void __mntput(struct vfsmovoid mntput_no_expire (struct vfsmount *mnt) { repeat: -if (atomic_dec_and_lock (&mnt->mnt_count, &vfsmount_lock)) { -if (likely (!mnt->mnt_pinned)) { -spin_unlock (&vfsmount_lock); -__mntput (mnt); -return ; - } -atomic_add (mnt->mnt_pinned +1 , &mnt->mnt_count);
Quoted 8 lines
fs/namespace.c static inline void __mntput(struct vfsmo · line 657
Quoted 6 lines
fs/namespace.c +2
-4- mnt->mnt_pinned =0 ; -spin_unlock (&vfsmount_lock); -acct_auto_close_mnt (mnt); - goto repeat; +if (atomic_add_unless (&mnt->mnt_count,-1 ,1 )) +return ;Hmm that's a unrelated change?
It's because we don't have atomic_dec_and_br_lock()...
Quoted 4 lines
The rest looks all good and quite straight forward
Reviewed-by Andi Kleen <[email protected]>
Thanks,
Nick