diff options
author | Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> | 2009-02-09 14:58:11 +0100 |
---|---|---|
committer | Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> | 2009-02-09 14:58:11 +0100 |
commit | 249d51b53aea1b7cdb1be65a1a9a0c59d9e06f3e (patch) | |
tree | 7fc06930e46ee13d394f5b031166c40206af3189 /fs/btrfs/locking.c | |
parent | 44581a28e805a31661469c4b466b9cd14b36e7b6 (diff) | |
parent | 8e4921515c1a379539607eb443d51c30f4f7f338 (diff) | |
download | talos-op-linux-249d51b53aea1b7cdb1be65a1a9a0c59d9e06f3e.tar.gz talos-op-linux-249d51b53aea1b7cdb1be65a1a9a0c59d9e06f3e.zip |
Merge commit 'v2.6.29-rc4' into core/percpu
Conflicts:
arch/x86/mach-voyager/voyager_smp.c
arch/x86/mm/fault.c
Diffstat (limited to 'fs/btrfs/locking.c')
-rw-r--r-- | fs/btrfs/locking.c | 208 |
1 files changed, 190 insertions, 18 deletions
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/locking.c b/fs/btrfs/locking.c index 39bae7761db6..68fd9ccf1805 100644 --- a/fs/btrfs/locking.c +++ b/fs/btrfs/locking.c @@ -26,45 +26,215 @@ #include "locking.h" /* - * locks the per buffer mutex in an extent buffer. This uses adaptive locks - * and the spin is not tuned very extensively. The spinning does make a big - * difference in almost every workload, but spinning for the right amount of - * time needs some help. - * - * In general, we want to spin as long as the lock holder is doing btree - * searches, and we should give up if they are in more expensive code. + * btrfs_header_level() isn't free, so don't call it when lockdep isn't + * on */ +#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC +static inline void spin_nested(struct extent_buffer *eb) +{ + spin_lock_nested(&eb->lock, BTRFS_MAX_LEVEL - btrfs_header_level(eb)); +} +#else +static inline void spin_nested(struct extent_buffer *eb) +{ + spin_lock(&eb->lock); +} +#endif -int btrfs_tree_lock(struct extent_buffer *eb) +/* + * Setting a lock to blocking will drop the spinlock and set the + * flag that forces other procs who want the lock to wait. After + * this you can safely schedule with the lock held. + */ +void btrfs_set_lock_blocking(struct extent_buffer *eb) { - int i; + if (!test_bit(EXTENT_BUFFER_BLOCKING, &eb->bflags)) { + set_bit(EXTENT_BUFFER_BLOCKING, &eb->bflags); + spin_unlock(&eb->lock); + } + /* exit with the spin lock released and the bit set */ +} - if (mutex_trylock(&eb->mutex)) - return 0; +/* + * clearing the blocking flag will take the spinlock again. + * After this you can't safely schedule + */ +void btrfs_clear_lock_blocking(struct extent_buffer *eb) +{ + if (test_bit(EXTENT_BUFFER_BLOCKING, &eb->bflags)) { + spin_nested(eb); + clear_bit(EXTENT_BUFFER_BLOCKING, &eb->bflags); + smp_mb__after_clear_bit(); + } + /* exit with the spin lock held */ +} + +/* + * unfortunately, many of the places that currently set a lock to blocking + * don't end up blocking for every long, and often they don't block + * at all. For a dbench 50 run, if we don't spin one the blocking bit + * at all, the context switch rate can jump up to 400,000/sec or more. + * + * So, we're still stuck with this crummy spin on the blocking bit, + * at least until the most common causes of the short blocks + * can be dealt with. + */ +static int btrfs_spin_on_block(struct extent_buffer *eb) +{ + int i; for (i = 0; i < 512; i++) { cpu_relax(); - if (mutex_trylock(&eb->mutex)) + if (!test_bit(EXTENT_BUFFER_BLOCKING, &eb->bflags)) + return 1; + if (need_resched()) + break; + } + return 0; +} + +/* + * This is somewhat different from trylock. It will take the + * spinlock but if it finds the lock is set to blocking, it will + * return without the lock held. + * + * returns 1 if it was able to take the lock and zero otherwise + * + * After this call, scheduling is not safe without first calling + * btrfs_set_lock_blocking() + */ +int btrfs_try_spin_lock(struct extent_buffer *eb) +{ + int i; + + spin_nested(eb); + if (!test_bit(EXTENT_BUFFER_BLOCKING, &eb->bflags)) + return 1; + spin_unlock(&eb->lock); + + /* spin for a bit on the BLOCKING flag */ + for (i = 0; i < 2; i++) { + if (!btrfs_spin_on_block(eb)) + break; + + spin_nested(eb); + if (!test_bit(EXTENT_BUFFER_BLOCKING, &eb->bflags)) + return 1; + spin_unlock(&eb->lock); + } + return 0; +} + +/* + * the autoremove wake function will return 0 if it tried to wake up + * a process that was already awake, which means that process won't + * count as an exclusive wakeup. The waitq code will continue waking + * procs until it finds one that was actually sleeping. + * + * For btrfs, this isn't quite what we want. We want a single proc + * to be notified that the lock is ready for taking. If that proc + * already happen to be awake, great, it will loop around and try for + * the lock. + * + * So, btrfs_wake_function always returns 1, even when the proc that we + * tried to wake up was already awake. + */ +static int btrfs_wake_function(wait_queue_t *wait, unsigned mode, + int sync, void *key) +{ + autoremove_wake_function(wait, mode, sync, key); + return 1; +} + +/* + * returns with the extent buffer spinlocked. + * + * This will spin and/or wait as required to take the lock, and then + * return with the spinlock held. + * + * After this call, scheduling is not safe without first calling + * btrfs_set_lock_blocking() + */ +int btrfs_tree_lock(struct extent_buffer *eb) +{ + DEFINE_WAIT(wait); + wait.func = btrfs_wake_function; + + while(1) { + spin_nested(eb); + + /* nobody is blocking, exit with the spinlock held */ + if (!test_bit(EXTENT_BUFFER_BLOCKING, &eb->bflags)) return 0; + + /* + * we have the spinlock, but the real owner is blocking. + * wait for them + */ + spin_unlock(&eb->lock); + + /* + * spin for a bit, and if the blocking flag goes away, + * loop around + */ + if (btrfs_spin_on_block(eb)) + continue; + + prepare_to_wait_exclusive(&eb->lock_wq, &wait, + TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE); + + if (test_bit(EXTENT_BUFFER_BLOCKING, &eb->bflags)) + schedule(); + + finish_wait(&eb->lock_wq, &wait); } - cpu_relax(); - mutex_lock_nested(&eb->mutex, BTRFS_MAX_LEVEL - btrfs_header_level(eb)); return 0; } +/* + * Very quick trylock, this does not spin or schedule. It returns + * 1 with the spinlock held if it was able to take the lock, or it + * returns zero if it was unable to take the lock. + * + * After this call, scheduling is not safe without first calling + * btrfs_set_lock_blocking() + */ int btrfs_try_tree_lock(struct extent_buffer *eb) { - return mutex_trylock(&eb->mutex); + if (spin_trylock(&eb->lock)) { + if (test_bit(EXTENT_BUFFER_BLOCKING, &eb->bflags)) { + /* + * we've got the spinlock, but the real owner is + * blocking. Drop the spinlock and return failure + */ + spin_unlock(&eb->lock); + return 0; + } + return 1; + } + /* someone else has the spinlock giveup */ + return 0; } int btrfs_tree_unlock(struct extent_buffer *eb) { - mutex_unlock(&eb->mutex); + /* + * if we were a blocking owner, we don't have the spinlock held + * just clear the bit and look for waiters + */ + if (test_and_clear_bit(EXTENT_BUFFER_BLOCKING, &eb->bflags)) + smp_mb__after_clear_bit(); + else + spin_unlock(&eb->lock); + + if (waitqueue_active(&eb->lock_wq)) + wake_up(&eb->lock_wq); return 0; } int btrfs_tree_locked(struct extent_buffer *eb) { - return mutex_is_locked(&eb->mutex); + return test_bit(EXTENT_BUFFER_BLOCKING, &eb->bflags) || + spin_is_locked(&eb->lock); } /* @@ -75,12 +245,14 @@ int btrfs_path_lock_waiting(struct btrfs_path *path, int level) { int i; struct extent_buffer *eb; + for (i = level; i <= level + 1 && i < BTRFS_MAX_LEVEL; i++) { eb = path->nodes[i]; if (!eb) break; smp_mb(); - if (!list_empty(&eb->mutex.wait_list)) + if (spin_is_contended(&eb->lock) || + waitqueue_active(&eb->lock_wq)) return 1; } return 0; |