locks: give the blocked_hash its own spinlock

There's no reason we have to protect the blocked_hash and file_lock_list
with the same spinlock. With the tests I have, breaking it in two gives
a barely measurable performance benefit, but it seems reasonable to make
this locking as granular as possible.

Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>

1 files changed, 8 insertions, 8 deletions

diff --git a/Documentation/filesystems/Locking b/Documentation/filesystems/Locking
index 2db7c9e..7d9ca7a 100644
--- a/Documentation/filesystems/Locking
+++ b/Documentation/filesystems/Locking
@@ -357,20 +357,20 @@ prototypes:
 
 locking rules:
 
-			inode->i_lock	file_lock_lock	may block
-lm_compare_owner:	yes[1]		maybe		no
-lm_owner_key		yes[1]		yes		no
-lm_notify:		yes		yes		no
-lm_grant:		no		no		no
-lm_break:		yes		no		no
-lm_change		yes		no		no
+			inode->i_lock	blocked_lock_lock	may block
+lm_compare_owner:	yes[1]		maybe			no
+lm_owner_key		yes[1]		yes			no
+lm_notify:		yes		yes			no
+lm_grant:		no		no			no
+lm_break:		yes		no			no
+lm_change		yes		no			no
 
 [1]:	->lm_compare_owner and ->lm_owner_key are generally called with
 *an* inode->i_lock held. It may not be the i_lock of the inode
 associated with either file_lock argument! This is the case with deadlock
 detection, since the code has to chase down the owners of locks that may
 be entirely unrelated to the one on which the lock is being acquired.
-For deadlock detection however, the file_lock_lock is also held. The
+For deadlock detection however, the blocked_lock_lock is also held. The
 fact that these locks are held ensures that the file_locks do not
 disappear out from under you while doing the comparison or generating an
 owner key.