Return-Path: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: from fieldses.org ([174.143.236.118]:52018 "EHLO fieldses.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756461Ab1KHW7J (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Nov 2011 17:59:09 -0500 From: "J. Bruce Fields" To: linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org Cc: "J. Bruce Fields" Subject: [PATCH 1/3] nfsd4: hash lockowners to simplify RELEASE_LOCKOWNER Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2011 17:59:03 -0500 Message-Id: <1320793145-29070-1-git-send-email-bfields@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <20111108225751.GD27413@fieldses.org> References: <20111108225751.GD27413@fieldses.org> Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: From: "J. Bruce Fields" Hash lockowners on just the owner string rather than on (owner, inode). This makes the owner-string lookup needed for RELEASE_LOCKOWNER simpler (currently it's doing at a linear search through the entire hash table!). That may come at the expense of making (owner, inode) lookups more expensive if a client reuses the same lockowner across multiple files. We might add a separate lookup for that. Signed-off-by: J. Bruce Fields --- fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c | 42 ++++++++++++++---------------------------- 1 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 28 deletions(-) diff --git a/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c b/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c index 1d6812d..eec9900 100644 --- a/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c +++ b/fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c @@ -3746,15 +3746,6 @@ last_byte_offset(u64 start, u64 len) return end > start ? end - 1: NFS4_MAX_UINT64; } -static inline unsigned int -lock_ownerstr_hashval(struct inode *inode, u32 cl_id, - struct xdr_netobj *ownername) -{ - return (file_hashval(inode) + cl_id - + opaque_hashval(ownername->data, ownername->len)) - & LOCK_HASH_MASK; -} - static struct list_head lock_ownerstr_hashtbl[LOCK_HASH_SIZE]; /* @@ -3824,7 +3815,7 @@ static struct nfs4_lockowner * find_lockowner_str(struct inode *inode, clientid_t *clid, struct xdr_netobj *owner) { - unsigned int hashval = lock_ownerstr_hashval(inode, clid->cl_id, owner); + unsigned int hashval = open_ownerstr_hashval(clid->cl_id, owner); struct nfs4_lockowner *lo; struct nfs4_stateowner *op; @@ -3847,7 +3838,7 @@ static void hash_lockowner(struct nfs4_lockowner *lo, unsigned int strhashval, s * Called in nfsd4_lock - therefore, OPEN and OPEN_CONFIRM (if needed) has * occurred. * - * strhashval = lock_ownerstr_hashval + * strhashval = open_ownerstr_hashval */ static struct nfs4_lockowner * @@ -3922,7 +3913,7 @@ __be32 lookup_or_create_lock_state(struct nfsd4_compound_state *cstate, struct n struct nfs4_ol_stateid, st_perstateowner); return nfs_ok; } - strhashval = lock_ownerstr_hashval(fi->fi_inode, cl->cl_clientid.cl_id, + strhashval = open_ownerstr_hashval(cl->cl_clientid.cl_id, &lock->v.new.owner); lo = alloc_init_lock_stateowner(strhashval, cl, ost, lock); if (lo == NULL) @@ -4286,7 +4277,7 @@ nfsd4_release_lockowner(struct svc_rqst *rqstp, struct nfs4_ol_stateid *stp; struct xdr_netobj *owner = &rlockowner->rl_owner; struct list_head matches; - int i; + unsigned int hashval = open_ownerstr_hashval(clid->cl_id, owner); __be32 status; dprintk("nfsd4_release_lockowner clientid: (%08x/%08x):\n", @@ -4301,22 +4292,17 @@ nfsd4_release_lockowner(struct svc_rqst *rqstp, nfs4_lock_state(); status = nfserr_locks_held; - /* XXX: we're doing a linear search through all the lockowners. - * Yipes! For now we'll just hope clients aren't really using - * release_lockowner much, but eventually we have to fix these - * data structures. */ INIT_LIST_HEAD(&matches); - for (i = 0; i < LOCK_HASH_SIZE; i++) { - list_for_each_entry(sop, &lock_ownerstr_hashtbl[i], so_strhash) { - if (!same_owner_str(sop, owner, clid)) - continue; - list_for_each_entry(stp, &sop->so_stateids, - st_perstateowner) { - lo = lockowner(sop); - if (check_for_locks(stp->st_file, lo)) - goto out; - list_add(&lo->lo_list, &matches); - } + + list_for_each_entry(sop, &lock_ownerstr_hashtbl[hashval], so_strhash) { + if (!same_owner_str(sop, owner, clid)) + continue; + list_for_each_entry(stp, &sop->so_stateids, + st_perstateowner) { + lo = lockowner(sop); + if (check_for_locks(stp->st_file, lo)) + goto out; + list_add(&lo->lo_list, &matches); } } /* Clients probably won't expect us to return with some (but not all) -- 1.7.5.4