release/5.2.37/locks-reinstate-locks_delete_block-optimization.patch

From 40962df8441fdfbebf196795772e78e6467dec7f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2020 07:52:21 -0400
Subject: [PATCH] locks: reinstate locks_delete_block optimization

commit dcf23ac3e846ca0cf626c155a0e3fcbbcf4fae8a upstream.

There is measurable performance impact in some synthetic tests due to
commit 6d390e4b5d48 (locks: fix a potential use-after-free problem when
wakeup a waiter). Fix the race condition instead by clearing the
fl_blocker pointer after the wake_up, using explicit acquire/release
semantics.

This does mean that we can no longer use the clearing of fl_blocker as
the wait condition, so switch the waiters over to checking whether the
fl_blocked_member list_head is empty.

Reviewed-by: yangerkun <yangerkun@huawei.com>
Reviewed-by: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>
Fixes: 6d390e4b5d48 (locks: fix a potential use-after-free problem when wakeup a waiter)
Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@windriver.com>

diff --git a/fs/cifs/file.c b/fs/cifs/file.c
index b971f7a79481..5910494c3f65 100644
--- a/fs/cifs/file.c
+++ b/fs/cifs/file.c
@@ -1149,7 +1149,8 @@ cifs_posix_lock_set(struct file *file, struct file_lock *flock)
 	rc = posix_lock_file(file, flock, NULL);
 	up_write(&cinode->lock_sem);
 	if (rc == FILE_LOCK_DEFERRED) {
-		rc = wait_event_interruptible(flock->fl_wait, !flock->fl_blocker);
+		rc = wait_event_interruptible(flock->fl_wait,
+					list_empty(&flock->fl_blocked_member));
 		if (!rc)
 			goto try_again;
 		locks_delete_block(flock);
diff --git a/fs/locks.c b/fs/locks.c
index e0c920ff599e..ceb202de1307 100644
--- a/fs/locks.c
+++ b/fs/locks.c
@@ -729,7 +729,6 @@ static void __locks_delete_block(struct file_lock *waiter)
 {
 	locks_delete_global_blocked(waiter);
 	list_del_init(&waiter->fl_blocked_member);
-	waiter->fl_blocker = NULL;
 }
 
 static void __locks_wake_up_blocks(struct file_lock *blocker)
@@ -744,6 +743,13 @@ static void __locks_wake_up_blocks(struct file_lock *blocker)
 			waiter->fl_lmops->lm_notify(waiter);
 		else
 			wake_up(&waiter->fl_wait);
+
+		/*
+		 * The setting of fl_blocker to NULL marks the "done"
+		 * point in deleting a block. Paired with acquire at the top
+		 * of locks_delete_block().
+		 */
+		smp_store_release(&waiter->fl_blocker, NULL);
 	}
 }
 
@@ -757,11 +763,42 @@ int locks_delete_block(struct file_lock *waiter)
 {
 	int status = -ENOENT;
 
+	/*
+	 * If fl_blocker is NULL, it won't be set again as this thread "owns"
+	 * the lock and is the only one that might try to claim the lock.
+	 *
+	 * We use acquire/release to manage fl_blocker so that we can
+	 * optimize away taking the blocked_lock_lock in many cases.
+	 *
+	 * The smp_load_acquire guarantees two things:
+	 *
+	 * 1/ that fl_blocked_requests can be tested locklessly. If something
+	 * was recently added to that list it must have been in a locked region
+	 * *before* the locked region when fl_blocker was set to NULL.
+	 *
+	 * 2/ that no other thread is accessing 'waiter', so it is safe to free
+	 * it.  __locks_wake_up_blocks is careful not to touch waiter after
+	 * fl_blocker is released.
+	 *
+	 * If a lockless check of fl_blocker shows it to be NULL, we know that
+	 * no new locks can be inserted into its fl_blocked_requests list, and
+	 * can avoid doing anything further if the list is empty.
+	 */
+	if (!smp_load_acquire(&waiter->fl_blocker) &&
+	    list_empty(&waiter->fl_blocked_requests))
+		return status;
+
 	spin_lock(&blocked_lock_lock);
 	if (waiter->fl_blocker)
 		status = 0;
 	__locks_wake_up_blocks(waiter);
 	__locks_delete_block(waiter);
+
+	/*
+	 * The setting of fl_blocker to NULL marks the "done" point in deleting
+	 * a block. Paired with acquire at the top of this function.
+	 */
+	smp_store_release(&waiter->fl_blocker, NULL);
 	spin_unlock(&blocked_lock_lock);
 	return status;
 }
@@ -1354,7 +1391,8 @@ static int posix_lock_inode_wait(struct inode *inode, struct file_lock *fl)
 		error = posix_lock_inode(inode, fl, NULL);
 		if (error != FILE_LOCK_DEFERRED)
 			break;
-		error = wait_event_interruptible(fl->fl_wait, !fl->fl_blocker);
+		error = wait_event_interruptible(fl->fl_wait,
+					list_empty(&fl->fl_blocked_member));
 		if (error)
 			break;
 	}
@@ -1439,7 +1477,8 @@ int locks_mandatory_area(struct inode *inode, struct file *filp, loff_t start,
 		error = posix_lock_inode(inode, &fl, NULL);
 		if (error != FILE_LOCK_DEFERRED)
 			break;
-		error = wait_event_interruptible(fl.fl_wait, !fl.fl_blocker);
+		error = wait_event_interruptible(fl.fl_wait,
+					list_empty(&fl.fl_blocked_member));
 		if (!error) {
 			/*
 			 * If we've been sleeping someone might have
@@ -1632,7 +1671,8 @@ int __break_lease(struct inode *inode, unsigned int mode, unsigned int type)
 
 	locks_dispose_list(&dispose);
 	error = wait_event_interruptible_timeout(new_fl->fl_wait,
-						!new_fl->fl_blocker, break_time);
+					list_empty(&new_fl->fl_blocked_member),
+					break_time);
 
 	percpu_down_read(&file_rwsem);
 	spin_lock(&ctx->flc_lock);
@@ -2043,7 +2083,8 @@ static int flock_lock_inode_wait(struct inode *inode, struct file_lock *fl)
 		error = flock_lock_inode(inode, fl);
 		if (error != FILE_LOCK_DEFERRED)
 			break;
-		error = wait_event_interruptible(fl->fl_wait, !fl->fl_blocker);
+		error = wait_event_interruptible(fl->fl_wait,
+				list_empty(&fl->fl_blocked_member));
 		if (error)
 			break;
 	}
@@ -2320,7 +2361,8 @@ static int do_lock_file_wait(struct file *filp, unsigned int cmd,
 		error = vfs_lock_file(filp, cmd, fl, NULL);
 		if (error != FILE_LOCK_DEFERRED)
 			break;
-		error = wait_event_interruptible(fl->fl_wait, !fl->fl_blocker);
+		error = wait_event_interruptible(fl->fl_wait,
+					list_empty(&fl->fl_blocked_member));
 		if (error)
 			break;
 	}
-- 
2.7.4