mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.com>
To: Oleg Drokin <oleg.drokin@intel.com>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <greg@kroah.com>,
	Andreas Dilger <andreas.dilger@intel.com>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Lustre Development List <lustre-devel@lists.lustre.org>
Subject: [PATCH 10/12] staging: lustre: ldlm: tidy list walking in ldlm_flock()
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 09:26:47 +1000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <150042040763.20736.17969183285195201575.stgit@noble> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <150041997277.20736.17112251996623587423.stgit@noble>

Use list_for_each_entry variants to
avoid the explicit list_entry() calls.
This allows us to use list_for_each_entry_safe_from()
instread of adding a local list-walking macro.

Also improve some comments so that it is more obvious
that the locks are sorted per-owner and that we need
to find the insertion point.

Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.com>
---
 drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/ldlm/ldlm_flock.c |   45 ++++++++++-------------
 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/ldlm/ldlm_flock.c b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/ldlm/ldlm_flock.c
index 9a888e1ce923..58227728a002 100644
--- a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/ldlm/ldlm_flock.c
+++ b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/ldlm/ldlm_flock.c
@@ -59,17 +59,6 @@
 #include <linux/list.h>
 #include "ldlm_internal.h"
 
-/**
- * list_for_remaining_safe - iterate over the remaining entries in a list
- *	      and safeguard against removal of a list entry.
- * \param pos   the &struct list_head to use as a loop counter. pos MUST
- *	      have been initialized prior to using it in this macro.
- * \param n     another &struct list_head to use as temporary storage
- * \param head  the head for your list.
- */
-#define list_for_remaining_safe(pos, n, head) \
-	for (n = pos->next; pos != (head); pos = n, n = pos->next)
-
 static inline int
 ldlm_same_flock_owner(struct ldlm_lock *lock, struct ldlm_lock *new)
 {
@@ -125,8 +114,8 @@ static int ldlm_process_flock_lock(struct ldlm_lock *req)
 {
 	struct ldlm_resource *res = req->l_resource;
 	struct ldlm_namespace *ns = ldlm_res_to_ns(res);
-	struct list_head *tmp;
-	struct list_head *ownlocks = NULL;
+	struct ldlm_lock *tmp;
+	struct ldlm_lock *ownlocks = NULL;
 	struct ldlm_lock *lock = NULL;
 	struct ldlm_lock *new = req;
 	struct ldlm_lock *new2 = NULL;
@@ -151,23 +140,23 @@ static int ldlm_process_flock_lock(struct ldlm_lock *req)
 	/* This loop determines where this processes locks start
 	 * in the resource lr_granted list.
 	 */
-	list_for_each(tmp, &res->lr_granted) {
-		lock = list_entry(tmp, struct ldlm_lock,
-				  l_res_link);
+	list_for_each_entry(lock, &res->lr_granted, l_res_link) {
 		if (ldlm_same_flock_owner(lock, req)) {
-			ownlocks = tmp;
+			ownlocks = lock;
 			break;
 		}
 	}
 
-	/* Scan the locks owned by this process that overlap this request.
+	/* Scan the locks owned by this process to find the insertion point
+	 * (as locks are ordered), and to handle overlaps.
 	 * We may have to merge or split existing locks.
 	 */
-	if (!ownlocks)
-		ownlocks = &res->lr_granted;
-
-	list_for_remaining_safe(ownlocks, tmp, &res->lr_granted) {
-		lock = list_entry(ownlocks, struct ldlm_lock, l_res_link);
+	if (ownlocks)
+		lock = ownlocks;
+	else
+		lock = list_entry(&res->lr_granted,
+				  struct ldlm_lock, l_res_link);
+	list_for_each_entry_safe_from(lock, tmp, &res->lr_granted, l_res_link) {
 
 		if (!ldlm_same_flock_owner(lock, new))
 			break;
@@ -295,7 +284,7 @@ static int ldlm_process_flock_lock(struct ldlm_lock *req)
 						 lock->l_granted_mode);
 
 		/* insert new2 at lock */
-		ldlm_resource_add_lock(res, ownlocks, new2);
+		ldlm_resource_add_lock(res, &lock->l_res_link, new2);
 		LDLM_LOCK_RELEASE(new2);
 		break;
 	}
@@ -309,8 +298,12 @@ static int ldlm_process_flock_lock(struct ldlm_lock *req)
 
 	if (!added) {
 		list_del_init(&req->l_res_link);
-		/* insert new lock before ownlocks in list. */
-		ldlm_resource_add_lock(res, ownlocks, req);
+		/* insert new lock before "lock", which might be
+		 * the next lock for this owner, or might be the first
+		 * lock for the next owner, order might not be a lock
+		 * at all, but instead points at the head of the list
+		 */
+		ldlm_resource_add_lock(res, &lock->l_res_link, req);
 	}
 
 	/* In case we're reprocessing the requested lock we can't destroy

  parent reply	other threads:[~2017-07-18 23:28 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-07-18 23:26 [PATCH 00/12] Assorted lustre fixes and improvements NeilBrown
2017-07-18 23:26 ` [PATCH 04/12] staging: lustre: ldlm: remove 'first_enq' arg from ldlm_process_flock_lock() NeilBrown
2017-07-18 23:26 ` [PATCH 03/12] staging: lustre: llite: fix various issues with ll_splice_alias NeilBrown
2017-07-19  2:51   ` Oleg Drokin
2017-07-19  4:33     ` NeilBrown
2017-07-19  6:18       ` Oleg Drokin
2017-07-18 23:26 ` [PATCH 09/12] staging: lustre: ldlm: remove 'flags' arg from ldlm_flock_destroy() NeilBrown
2017-07-18 23:26 ` [PATCH 08/12] staging: lustre: ldlm: remove unused 'overlaps' variable NeilBrown
2017-07-18 23:26 ` NeilBrown [this message]
     [not found]   ` <BN6PR1101MB2132359E48C9904D3E305EE7CBA60@BN6PR1101MB2132.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
2017-07-19  4:36     ` [lustre-devel] [PATCH 10/12] staging: lustre: ldlm: tidy list walking in ldlm_flock() NeilBrown
2017-07-18 23:26 ` [PATCH 02/12] staging: lustre: llite: fix incorrect DCACHE_DISCONNECTED test NeilBrown
2017-07-18 23:26 ` [PATCH 05/12] staging: lustre: ldlm: remove unused 'work_list' arg from ldlm_process_flock_lock() NeilBrown
2017-07-18 23:26 ` [PATCH 07/12] staging: lustre: ldlm: remove 'flags' " NeilBrown
2017-07-18 23:26 ` [PATCH 01/12] staging: lustre: fix minor typos in comments NeilBrown
2017-07-19  8:29   ` Greg KH
2017-08-02  3:26     ` [PATCH] " NeilBrown
2017-08-03 17:29       ` [lustre-devel] " James Simmons
2017-07-18 23:26 ` [PATCH 06/12] staging: lustre: ldlm: remove unneeded 'err' arg to ldlm_process_flock_lock() NeilBrown
2017-07-18 23:26 ` [PATCH 11/12] staging: lustre: ldlm: remove unnecessary 'ownlocks' variable NeilBrown
2017-07-18 23:26 ` [PATCH 12/12] staging: lustre: ldlm: remove unused field 'fwd_generation' NeilBrown

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=150042040763.20736.17969183285195201575.stgit@noble \
    --to=neilb@suse.com \
    --cc=andreas.dilger@intel.com \
    --cc=greg@kroah.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=lustre-devel@lists.lustre.org \
    --cc=oleg.drokin@intel.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®