Re: [PATCH v4 05/13] bcache: stop dc->writeback_rate_update properly

[Coly Li <colyli@suse.de>]

On 29/01/2018 3:35 PM, tang.junhui@zte.com.cn wrote:
> From: Tang Junhui <tang.junhui@zte.com.cn>
> 
> Hello Coly:
> 
> This patch is somewhat difficult for me,
> I think we can resolve it in a simple way.
> 
> We can take the schedule_delayed_work() under the protection of 
> dc->writeback_lock, and judge if we need re-arm this work to queue.
> 
> static void update_writeback_rate(struct work_struct *work)
> {
> 	struct cached_dev *dc = container_of(to_delayed_work(work),
> 					     struct cached_dev,
> 					     writeback_rate_update);
> 
> 	down_read(&dc->writeback_lock);
> 
> 	if (atomic_read(&dc->has_dirty) &&
> 	    dc->writeback_percent)
> 		__update_writeback_rate(dc);
> 
> -	up_read(&dc->writeback_lock);
> +	if (NEED_RE-AEMING)	
> 		schedule_delayed_work(&dc->writeback_rate_update,
> 			      dc->writeback_rate_update_seconds * HZ);
> +	up_read(&dc->writeback_lock);
> }
> 
> In cached_dev_detach_finish() and cached_dev_free() we can set the no need
> flag under the protection of dc->writeback_lock, for example:
> 
> static void cached_dev_detach_finish(struct work_struct *w)
> {
> 	...
> +	down_write(&dc->writeback_lock);
> +	SET NO NEED RE-ARM FLAG
> +	up_write(&dc->writeback_lock);
> 	cancel_delayed_work_sync(&dc->writeback_rate_update);
> }
> 
> I think this way is more simple and readable.
> 

Hi Junhui,

Your suggest is essentially almost same to my patch,
- clear BCACHE_DEV_DETACHING bit acts as SET NO NEED RE-ARM FLAG.
- cancel_writeback_rate_update_dwork acts as some kind of locking with a
timeout.

The difference is I don't use dc->writeback_lock, and replace it by
BCACHE_DEV_RATE_DW_RUNNING.

The reason is my following development. I plan to implement a real-time
update stripe_sectors_dirty of bcache device and cache set, then
bcache_flash_devs_sectors_dirty() can be very fast and bch_register_lock
can be removed here. And then I also plan to remove reference of
dc->writeback_lock in update_writeback_rate() because indeed it is
unnecessary here (the patch is held by Mike's locking resort work).

Since I plan to remove dc->writeback_lock from update_writeback_rate(),
I don't want to reference dc->writeback in the delayed work.

The basic idea behind your suggestion and this patch, is almost
identical. The only difference might be the timeout in
cancel_writeback_rate_update_dwork().

Thanks.

Coly Li