From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@debian.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@transmeta.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH] An option to make fcntl & flock locks fair
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 15:18:48 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20020822151848.W29958@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk> (raw)
Shlomi Fish asked about including first-come, first-served style locking
for posix and flock locks. After some back-and-forth, we came up with
the following patch which seems unintrusive enough to bother including.
Personally, I doubt the utility of this, but someone might have an
application for it, and the code's already written.
diff -urpNX dontdiff linux-2.5.31/fs/locks.c linux-2.5.31-willy/fs/locks.c
--- linux-2.5.31/fs/locks.c 2002-08-01 14:16:39.000000000 -0700
+++ linux-2.5.31-willy/fs/locks.c 2002-08-21 08:29:29.000000000 -0700
@@ -126,6 +126,14 @@
#include <asm/semaphore.h>
#include <asm/uaccess.h>
+/* Defining FAIR_LOCKS prevents readers from starving writers. I'm not
+ * sure anyone has a usage pattern where this is actually a problem, but
+ * it's a trivial change to allow you to enable this, so I added it.
+ * Note that we record the owner and check it first, so you can't deadlock
+ * on an attempt to modify your own lock.
+ */
+#undef FAIR_LOCKS
+
#define IS_POSIX(fl) (fl->fl_flags & FL_POSIX)
#define IS_FLOCK(fl) (fl->fl_flags & FL_FLOCK)
#define IS_LEASE(fl) (fl->fl_flags & FL_LEASE)
@@ -503,24 +508,22 @@ static void locks_delete_lock(struct fil
locks_free_lock(fl);
}
-/* Determine if lock sys_fl blocks lock caller_fl. Common functionality
- * checks for shared/exclusive status of overlapping locks.
+/*
+ * Determine if lock sys_fl blocks lock caller_fl. Write locks require
+ * exclusive access, read locks can share. If you define FAIR_LOCKS,
+ * readers can only share until a writer comes along and blocks.
*/
static int locks_conflict(struct file_lock *caller_fl, struct file_lock *sys_fl)
{
- switch (caller_fl->fl_type) {
- case F_RDLCK:
- return (sys_fl->fl_type == F_WRLCK);
-
- case F_WRLCK:
- return (1);
-
- default:
- printk(KERN_ERR "locks_conflict(): impossible lock type - %d\n",
- caller_fl->fl_type);
- break;
- }
- return (0); /* This should never happen */
+ if (caller_fl->fl_type == F_WRLCK)
+ return 1;
+ if (sys_fl->fl_type == F_WRLCK)
+ return 1;
+#ifdef FAIR_LOCKS
+ if (!list_empty(&sys_fl->fl_block))
+ return 1;
+#endif
+ return 0;
}
/* Determine if lock sys_fl blocks lock caller_fl. POSIX specific
--
Revolutions do not require corporate support.
reply other threads:[~2002-08-22 14:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: [no followups] expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed
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=20020822151848.W29958@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk \
--to=willy@debian.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=torvalds@transmeta.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®