Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Thu, 9 Aug 2018 22:52:51 -0400
From:   "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org>
To:     NeilBrown <neilb@suse.com>
Cc:     Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>,
        Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
        Martin Wilck <mwilck@suse.de>, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
        Frank Filz <ffilzlnx@mindspring.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5 - V2] locks: avoid thundering-herd wake-ups
Message-ID: <20180810025251.GO23873@fieldses.org>
References: <153378012255.1220.6754153662007899557.stgit@noble>
 <20180809173245.GM23873@fieldses.org>
 <87lg9frxyc.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name>
 <20180810002922.GA3915@fieldses.org>
 <871sb7rnul.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <871sb7rnul.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 11:50:58AM +1000, NeilBrown wrote:
> You're good at this game!

Everybody's got to have a hobby, mine is pathological posix locking
cases....

> So, because a locker with the same "owner" gets a free pass, you can
> *never* say that any lock which conflicts with A also conflicts with B,
> as a lock with the same owner as B will never conflict with B, even
> though it conflicts with A.
> 
> I think there is still value in having the tree, but when a waiter is
> attached under a new blocker, we need to walk the whole tree beneath the
> waiter and detach/wake anything that is not blocked by the new blocker.

If you're walking the whole tree every time then it might as well be a
flat list, I think?

--b.