From: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
To: Gabriel Krisman Bertazi <krisman@suse.de>
Cc: axboe@kernel.dk, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-block@vger.kernel.org, Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>,
Keith Busch <kbusch@kernel.org>,
Liu Song <liusong@linux.alibaba.com>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sbitmap: Use single per-bitmap counting to wake up queued tags
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2022 14:23:13 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20221114132313.5cqhvzxarm7rwvmt@quack3> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20221105231055.25953-1-krisman@suse.de>
Gabriel, when looking through this patch, I've noticed we can loose wakeups
after your latest simplifications. See below for details:
On Sat 05-11-22 19:10:55, Gabriel Krisman Bertazi wrote:
> @@ -587,7 +571,7 @@ static struct sbq_wait_state *sbq_wake_ptr(struct sbitmap_queue *sbq)
> for (i = 0; i < SBQ_WAIT_QUEUES; i++) {
> struct sbq_wait_state *ws = &sbq->ws[wake_index];
>
> - if (waitqueue_active(&ws->wait) && atomic_read(&ws->wait_cnt)) {
> + if (waitqueue_active(&ws->wait)) {
> if (wake_index != atomic_read(&sbq->wake_index))
> atomic_set(&sbq->wake_index, wake_index);
> return ws;
Neither sbq_wake_ptr() nor sbitmap_queue_wake_up() now increment the
wake_index after performing the wakeup. Thus we would effectively keep
waking tasks from a single waitqueue until it becomes empty and only then
go for the next waitqueue. This creates unnecessary unfairness in task
wakeups and even possible starvation issues. So I think we need to advance
wake_index somewhere. Perhaps here before returning waitqueue.
> @@ -599,83 +583,31 @@ static struct sbq_wait_state *sbq_wake_ptr(struct sbitmap_queue *sbq)
> return NULL;
> }
>
> -static bool __sbq_wake_up(struct sbitmap_queue *sbq, int *nr)
> +void sbitmap_queue_wake_up(struct sbitmap_queue *sbq, int nr)
> {
> + unsigned int wake_batch = READ_ONCE(sbq->wake_batch);
> + struct sbq_wait_state *ws = NULL;
> + unsigned int wakeups;
>
> + if (!atomic_read(&sbq->ws_active))
> + return;
>
> + atomic_add(nr, &sbq->completion_cnt);
> + wakeups = atomic_read(&sbq->wakeup_cnt);
>
> do {
> + if (atomic_read(&sbq->completion_cnt) - wakeups < wake_batch)
> + return;
>
> + if (!ws) {
> + ws = sbq_wake_ptr(sbq);
> + if (!ws)
> + return;
> + }
> + } while (!atomic_try_cmpxchg(&sbq->wakeup_cnt,
> + &wakeups, wakeups + wake_batch));
>
> wake_up_nr(&ws->wait, wake_batch);
Now this may be also problematic - when we were checking the number of woken
waiters in the older version of the patch (for others: internal version of
the patch) this was fine but now it may happen that the 'ws' we have
selected has no waiters anymore. And in that case we need to find another
waitqueue because otherwise we'd be loosing too many wakeups and we could
deadlock. So I think this rather needs to be something like:
do {
if (atomic_read(&sbq->completion_cnt) - wakeups < wake_batch)
return;
} while (!atomic_try_cmpxchg(&sbq->wakeup_cnt,
&wakeups, wakeups + wake_batch));
do {
ws = sbq_wake_ptr(sbq);
if (!ws)
return;
} while (!wake_up_nr(&ws->wait, wake_batch));
with our original version of wake_up_nr() returning number of woken
waiters. What do you think?
Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack@suse.com>
SUSE Labs, CR
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-11-14 13:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-11-05 23:10 [PATCH] sbitmap: Use single per-bitmap counting to wake up queued tags Gabriel Krisman Bertazi
2022-11-08 23:28 ` Chaitanya Kulkarni
2022-11-09 3:03 ` Gabriel Krisman Bertazi
2022-11-09 3:35 ` Chaitanya Kulkarni
2022-11-09 22:06 ` Jens Axboe
2022-11-09 22:48 ` Gabriel Krisman Bertazi
2022-11-10 3:25 ` Jens Axboe
2022-11-10 9:42 ` Yu Kuai
2022-11-10 11:16 ` Jan Kara
2022-11-10 13:18 ` Yu Kuai
2022-11-10 15:35 ` Jan Kara
2022-11-11 0:59 ` Yu Kuai
2022-11-11 15:38 ` Jens Axboe
2022-11-14 13:23 ` Jan Kara [this message]
2022-11-14 14:20 ` [PATCH] sbitmap: Advance the queue index before waking up the queue Gabriel Krisman Bertazi
2022-11-14 14:34 ` Jan Kara
2022-11-15 3:52 ` [PATCH] sbitmap: Use single per-bitmap counting to wake up queued tags Gabriel Krisman Bertazi
2022-11-15 10:24 ` Jan Kara
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=20221114132313.5cqhvzxarm7rwvmt@quack3 \
--to=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=hughd@google.com \
--cc=kbusch@kernel.org \
--cc=krisman@suse.de \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=liusong@linux.alibaba.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