locks: clarify posix_locks_deadlock

For such a short function (with such a long comment),
posix_locks_deadlock() seems to cause a lot of confusion.  Attempt to
make it a bit clearer:

	- Remove the initial posix_same_owner() check, which can never
	  pass (since this is only called in the case that block_fl and
	  caller_fl conflict)
	- Use an explicit loop (and a helper function) instead of a goto.
	- Rewrite the comment, attempting a clearer explanation, and
	  removing some uninteresting historical detail.

Signed-off-by: J. Bruce Fields <bfields@citi.umich.edu>

fs/locks.c

@@ -683,45 +683,55 @@ posix_test_lock(struct file *filp, struct file_lock *fl)
 
 EXPORT_SYMBOL(posix_test_lock);
 
-/* This function tests for deadlock condition before putting a process to
+/*
- * sleep. The detection scheme is no longer recursive. Recursive was neat,
+ * Deadlock detection:
- * but dangerous - we risked stack corruption if the lock data was bad, or
- * if the recursion was too deep for any other reason.
  *
- * We rely on the fact that a task can only be on one lock's wait queue
+ * We attempt to detect deadlocks that are due purely to posix file
- * at a time. When we find blocked_task on a wait queue we can re-search
+ * locks.
- * with blocked_task equal to that queue's owner, until either blocked_task
- * isn't found, or blocked_task is found on a queue owned by my_task.
  *
- * Note: the above assumption may not be true when handling lock requests
+ * We assume that a task can be waiting for at most one lock at a time.
- * from a broken NFS client. But broken NFS clients have a lot more to
+ * So for any acquired lock, the process holding that lock may be
- * worry about than proper deadlock detection anyway... --okir
+ * waiting on at most one other lock.  That lock in turns may be held by
+ * someone waiting for at most one other lock.  Given a requested lock
+ * caller_fl which is about to wait for a conflicting lock block_fl, we
+ * follow this chain of waiters to ensure we are not about to create a
+ * cycle.
  *
- * However, the failure of this assumption (also possible in the case of
+ * Since we do this before we ever put a process to sleep on a lock, we
- * multiple tasks sharing the same open file table) also means there's no
+ * are ensured that there is never a cycle; that is what guarantees that
- * guarantee that the loop below will terminate.  As a hack, we give up
+ * the while() loop in posix_locks_deadlock() eventually completes.
- * after a few iterations.
+ *
+ * Note: the above assumption may not be true when handling lock
+ * requests from a broken NFS client. It may also fail in the presence
+ * of tasks (such as posix threads) sharing the same open file table.
+ *
+ * To handle those cases, we just bail out after a few iterations.
  */
 
 #define MAX_DEADLK_ITERATIONS 10
 
+/* Find a lock that the owner of the given block_fl is blocking on. */
+static struct file_lock *what_owner_is_waiting_for(struct file_lock *block_fl)
+{
+	struct file_lock *fl;
+
+	list_for_each_entry(fl, &blocked_list, fl_link) {
+		if (posix_same_owner(fl, block_fl))
+			return fl->fl_next;
+	}
+	return NULL;
+}
+
 static int posix_locks_deadlock(struct file_lock *caller_fl,
 				struct file_lock *block_fl)
 {
-	struct file_lock *fl;
 	int i = 0;
 
-next_task:
+	while ((block_fl = what_owner_is_waiting_for(block_fl))) {
-	if (posix_same_owner(caller_fl, block_fl))
+		if (i++ > MAX_DEADLK_ITERATIONS)
-		return 1;
+			return 0;
-	list_for_each_entry(fl, &blocked_list, fl_link) {
+		if (posix_same_owner(caller_fl, block_fl))
-		if (posix_same_owner(fl, block_fl)) {
+			return 1;
-			if (i++ > MAX_DEADLK_ITERATIONS)
-				return 0;
-			fl = fl->fl_next;
-			block_fl = fl;
-			goto next_task;
-		}
 	}
 	return 0;
 }