This patch will optimize __put_lkb() by using kref_put_lock(). The
function kref_put_lock() will only take the lock if the reference is
going to be zero, if not the lock will never be held.

Signed-off-by: Alexander Aring <aahringo@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: David Teigland <teigland@redhat.com>

This patch will optimize put_rsb() by using kref_put_lock(). The
function kref_put_lock() will only take the lock if the reference is
going to be zero, if not the lock will never be held.

Signed-off-by: Alexander Aring <aahringo@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: David Teigland <teigland@redhat.com>

This patch removes unnecessary error assigns to 0 at places we know that
error is zero because it was checked on non-zero before.

Signed-off-by: Alexander Aring <aahringo@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: David Teigland <teigland@redhat.com>

We always call hold_lkb(lkb) if we increment lkb->lkb_wait_count.
So, we always need to call unhold_lkb(lkb) if we decrement
lkb->lkb_wait_count. This patch will add missing unhold_lkb(lkb) if we
decrement lkb->lkb_wait_count. In case of setting lkb->lkb_wait_count to
zero we need to countdown until reaching zero and call unhold_lkb(lkb).
The waiters list unhold_lkb(lkb) can be removed because it's done for
the last lkb_wait_count decrement iteration as it's done in
_remove_from_waiters().

This issue was discovered by a dlm gfs2 test case which use excessively
dlm_unlock(LKF_CANCEL) feature. Probably the lkb->lkb_wait_count value
never reached above 1 if this feature isn't used and so it was not
discovered before.

The testcase ended in a rsb on the rsb keep data structure with a
refcount of 1 but no lkb was associated with it, which is itself
an invalid behaviour. A side effect of that was a condition in which
the dlm was sending remove messages in a looping behaviour. With this
patch that has not been reproduced.

Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Alexander Aring <aahringo@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: David Teigland <teigland@redhat.com>

To move the list iterator variable into the list_for_each_entry_*()
macro in the future it should be avoided to use the list iterator
variable after the loop body.

To *never* use the list iterator variable after the loop it was
concluded to use a separate iterator variable instead of a
found boolean [1].

This removes the need to use a found variable and simply checking if
the variable was set, can determine if the break/goto was hit.

Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAHk-=wgRr_D8CB-D9Kg-c=EHreAsk5SqXPwr9Y7k9sA6cWXJ6w@mail.gmail.com/ [1]
Signed-off-by: Jakob Koschel <jakobkoschel@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Alexander Aring <aahringo@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: David Teigland <teigland@redhat.com>

In preparation to limit the scope of a list iterator to the list
traversal loop, use a dedicated pointer to point to the found element [1].

Before, the code implicitly used the head when no element was found
when using &pos->list. Since the new variable is only set if an
element was found, the list_add() is performed within the loop
and only done after the loop if it is done on the list head directly.

Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAHk-=wgRr_D8CB-D9Kg-c=EHreAsk5SqXPwr9Y7k9sA6cWXJ6w@mail.gmail.com/ [1]
Signed-off-by: Jakob Koschel <jakobkoschel@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Alexander Aring <aahringo@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: David Teigland <teigland@redhat.com>

This patch unsets ls_remove_len and ls_remove_name if a message
allocation of a remove messages fails. In this case we never send a
remove message out but set the per ls ls_remove_len ls_remove_name
variable for a pending remove. Unset those variable should indicate
possible waiters in wait_pending_remove() that no pending remove is
going on at this moment.

Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Alexander Aring <aahringo@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: David Teigland <teigland@redhat.com>

This patch move the wake_up() call at the point when a remove message
completed. Before it was only when a remove message was going to be
sent. The possible waiter in wait_pending_remove() waits until a remove
is done if the resource name matches with the per ls variable
ls->ls_remove_name. If this is the case we must wait until a pending
remove is done which is indicated if DLM_WAIT_PENDING_COND() returns
false which will always be the case when ls_remove_len and
ls_remove_name are unset to indicate that a remove is not going on
anymore.

Fixes: 21d9ac1a5376 ("fs: dlm: use event based wait for pending remove")
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Alexander Aring <aahringo@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: David Teigland <teigland@redhat.com>

This patch will remove the following warning by sparse:

fs/dlm/lock.c:1049:9: warning: context imbalance in 'dlm_master_lookup' - different lock contexts for basic block

I tried to find any issues with the current handling and I did not find
any. However it is hard to follow the lock handling in this area of
dlm_master_lookup() and I suppose that sparse cannot realize that there
are no issues. The variable "toss_list" makes it really hard to follow
the lock handling because if it's set the rsb lock/refcount isn't held
but the ls->ls_rsbtbl[b].lock is held and this is one reason why the rsb
lock/refcount does not need to be held. If it's not set the
ls->ls_rsbtbl[b].lock is not held but the rsb lock/refcount is held. The
indicator of toss_list will be used to store the actual lock state.
Another possibility is that a retry can happen and then it's hard to
follow the specific code part. I did not find any issues but sparse
cannot realize that there are no issues.

To make it more easier to understand for developers and sparse as well,
we remove the toss_list variable which indicates a specific lock state
and move handling in between of this lock state in a separate function.
This function can be called now in case when the initial lock states are
taken which was previously signalled if toss_list was set or not. The
advantage here is that we can release all locks/refcounts in mostly the
same code block as it was taken.

Afterwards sparse had no issues to figure out that there are no problems
with the current lock behaviour.

Signed-off-by: Alexander Aring <aahringo@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: David Teigland <teigland@redhat.com>

This patch cleanups a not necessary label found which can be replaced by
a proper else handling to jump over a specific code block.

Signed-off-by: Alexander Aring <aahringo@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: David Teigland <teigland@redhat.com>