* [PATCH 1/6] btrfs: remove waitqueue_active check from btrfs_rm_dev_replace_unblocked
2015-10-11 17:50 [PULL][PATCH 0/6] Barriers around waitqueue_active (V2) David Sterba
@ 2015-10-11 17:50 ` David Sterba
2015-10-11 17:50 ` [PATCH 2/6] btrfs: add barrier for waitqueue_active in clear_btree_io_tree David Sterba
` (4 subsequent siblings)
5 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: David Sterba @ 2015-10-11 17:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-btrfs; +Cc: David Sterba
Normally the waitqueue_active would need a barrier, but this is not
necessary here because it's not a performance sensitive context and we
can call wake_up directly.
Suggested-by: Chris Mason <clm@fb.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
---
fs/btrfs/dev-replace.c | 3 +--
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/dev-replace.c b/fs/btrfs/dev-replace.c
index e54dd5905cee..733ff75b620e 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/dev-replace.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/dev-replace.c
@@ -454,8 +454,7 @@ static void btrfs_rm_dev_replace_blocked(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info)
static void btrfs_rm_dev_replace_unblocked(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info)
{
clear_bit(BTRFS_FS_STATE_DEV_REPLACING, &fs_info->fs_state);
- if (waitqueue_active(&fs_info->replace_wait))
- wake_up(&fs_info->replace_wait);
+ wake_up(&fs_info->replace_wait);
}
static int btrfs_dev_replace_finishing(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info,
--
2.1.3
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread* [PATCH 2/6] btrfs: add barrier for waitqueue_active in clear_btree_io_tree
2015-10-11 17:50 [PULL][PATCH 0/6] Barriers around waitqueue_active (V2) David Sterba
2015-10-11 17:50 ` [PATCH 1/6] btrfs: remove waitqueue_active check from btrfs_rm_dev_replace_unblocked David Sterba
@ 2015-10-11 17:50 ` David Sterba
2015-10-11 17:50 ` [PATCH 3/6] btrfs: comment waitqueue_active implied by locks David Sterba
` (3 subsequent siblings)
5 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: David Sterba @ 2015-10-11 17:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-btrfs; +Cc: David Sterba
waitqueue_active should be preceded by a barrier, in this function we
don't need to call it all the time.
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
---
fs/btrfs/transaction.c | 6 ++++++
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/transaction.c b/fs/btrfs/transaction.c
index 74bc3338418b..e8e5b5a10719 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/transaction.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/transaction.c
@@ -82,6 +82,12 @@ void btrfs_put_transaction(struct btrfs_transaction *transaction)
static void clear_btree_io_tree(struct extent_io_tree *tree)
{
spin_lock(&tree->lock);
+ /*
+ * Do a single barrier for the waitqueue_active check here, the state
+ * of the waitqueue should not change once clear_btree_io_tree is
+ * called.
+ */
+ smp_mb();
while (!RB_EMPTY_ROOT(&tree->state)) {
struct rb_node *node;
struct extent_state *state;
--
2.1.3
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread* [PATCH 3/6] btrfs: comment waitqueue_active implied by locks
2015-10-11 17:50 [PULL][PATCH 0/6] Barriers around waitqueue_active (V2) David Sterba
2015-10-11 17:50 ` [PATCH 1/6] btrfs: remove waitqueue_active check from btrfs_rm_dev_replace_unblocked David Sterba
2015-10-11 17:50 ` [PATCH 2/6] btrfs: add barrier for waitqueue_active in clear_btree_io_tree David Sterba
@ 2015-10-11 17:50 ` David Sterba
2015-10-11 17:50 ` [PATCH 4/6] btrfs: add comments to barriers before waitqueue_active David Sterba
` (2 subsequent siblings)
5 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: David Sterba @ 2015-10-11 17:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-btrfs; +Cc: David Sterba
Suggested-by: Chris Mason <clm@fb.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
---
fs/btrfs/raid56.c | 6 +++++-
fs/btrfs/tree-log.c | 6 ++++++
2 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/raid56.c b/fs/btrfs/raid56.c
index fcf7265ca46f..1a33d3eb36de 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/raid56.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/raid56.c
@@ -810,7 +810,11 @@ static noinline void unlock_stripe(struct btrfs_raid_bio *rbio)
}
goto done_nolock;
- } else if (waitqueue_active(&h->wait)) {
+ /*
+ * The barrier for this waitqueue_active is not needed,
+ * we're protected by h->lock and can't miss a wakeup.
+ */
+ } else if (waitqueue_active(&h->wait)) {
spin_unlock(&rbio->bio_list_lock);
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&h->lock, flags);
wake_up(&h->wait);
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/tree-log.c b/fs/btrfs/tree-log.c
index 1bbaace73383..d0deb4643502 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/tree-log.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/tree-log.c
@@ -2950,6 +2950,9 @@ int btrfs_sync_log(struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans,
atomic_set(&log_root_tree->log_commit[index2], 0);
mutex_unlock(&log_root_tree->log_mutex);
+ /*
+ * The barrier before waitqueue_active is implied by mutex_unlock
+ */
if (waitqueue_active(&log_root_tree->log_commit_wait[index2]))
wake_up(&log_root_tree->log_commit_wait[index2]);
out:
@@ -2961,6 +2964,9 @@ int btrfs_sync_log(struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans,
atomic_set(&root->log_commit[index1], 0);
mutex_unlock(&root->log_mutex);
+ /*
+ * The barrier before waitqueue_active is implied by mutex_unlock
+ */
if (waitqueue_active(&root->log_commit_wait[index1]))
wake_up(&root->log_commit_wait[index1]);
return ret;
--
2.1.3
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread* [PATCH 4/6] btrfs: add comments to barriers before waitqueue_active
2015-10-11 17:50 [PULL][PATCH 0/6] Barriers around waitqueue_active (V2) David Sterba
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2015-10-11 17:50 ` [PATCH 3/6] btrfs: comment waitqueue_active implied by locks David Sterba
@ 2015-10-11 17:50 ` David Sterba
2015-10-11 17:50 ` [PATCH 5/6] btrfs: remove extra barrier " David Sterba
2015-10-11 17:50 ` [PATCH 6/6] btrfs: comment the rest of implicit barriers " David Sterba
5 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: David Sterba @ 2015-10-11 17:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-btrfs; +Cc: David Sterba
Reduce number of undocumented barriers out there.
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
---
fs/btrfs/compression.c | 3 +++
fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c | 3 +--
fs/btrfs/locking.c | 3 +++
fs/btrfs/ordered-data.c | 6 ++++++
fs/btrfs/transaction.c | 3 +++
5 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/compression.c b/fs/btrfs/compression.c
index 57ee8ca29b06..3a9317ce67f8 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/compression.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/compression.c
@@ -839,6 +839,9 @@ static void free_workspace(int type, struct list_head *workspace)
btrfs_compress_op[idx]->free_workspace(workspace);
atomic_dec(alloc_workspace);
wake:
+ /*
+ * Make sure counter is updated before we wake up waiters.
+ */
smp_mb();
if (waitqueue_active(workspace_wait))
wake_up(workspace_wait);
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c b/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
index 9f9604201333..59eb92f65c62 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
@@ -10363,8 +10363,7 @@ void btrfs_end_write_no_snapshoting(struct btrfs_root *root)
{
percpu_counter_dec(&root->subv_writers->counter);
/*
- * Make sure counter is updated before we wake up
- * waiters.
+ * Make sure counter is updated before we wake up waiters.
*/
smp_mb();
if (waitqueue_active(&root->subv_writers->wait))
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/locking.c b/fs/btrfs/locking.c
index d7e6baf1b205..03f8630dbaf2 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/locking.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/locking.c
@@ -280,6 +280,9 @@ void btrfs_tree_unlock(struct extent_buffer *eb)
if (blockers) {
WARN_ON(atomic_read(&eb->spinning_writers));
atomic_dec(&eb->blocking_writers);
+ /*
+ * Make sure counter is updated before we wake up waiters.
+ */
smp_mb();
if (waitqueue_active(&eb->write_lock_wq))
wake_up(&eb->write_lock_wq);
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/ordered-data.c b/fs/btrfs/ordered-data.c
index 52170cf1757e..071005f008c1 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/ordered-data.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/ordered-data.c
@@ -345,6 +345,9 @@ int btrfs_dec_test_first_ordered_pending(struct inode *inode,
if (entry->bytes_left == 0) {
ret = test_and_set_bit(BTRFS_ORDERED_IO_DONE, &entry->flags);
+ /*
+ * Implicit memory barrier after test_and_set_bit
+ */
if (waitqueue_active(&entry->wait))
wake_up(&entry->wait);
} else {
@@ -409,6 +412,9 @@ int btrfs_dec_test_ordered_pending(struct inode *inode,
if (entry->bytes_left == 0) {
ret = test_and_set_bit(BTRFS_ORDERED_IO_DONE, &entry->flags);
+ /*
+ * Implicit memory barrier after test_and_set_bit
+ */
if (waitqueue_active(&entry->wait))
wake_up(&entry->wait);
} else {
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/transaction.c b/fs/btrfs/transaction.c
index e8e5b5a10719..3fd70f797b7d 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/transaction.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/transaction.c
@@ -861,6 +861,9 @@ static int __btrfs_end_transaction(struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans,
atomic_dec(&cur_trans->num_writers);
extwriter_counter_dec(cur_trans, trans->type);
+ /*
+ * Make sure counter is updated before we wake up waiters.
+ */
smp_mb();
if (waitqueue_active(&cur_trans->writer_wait))
wake_up(&cur_trans->writer_wait);
--
2.1.3
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread* [PATCH 5/6] btrfs: remove extra barrier before waitqueue_active
2015-10-11 17:50 [PULL][PATCH 0/6] Barriers around waitqueue_active (V2) David Sterba
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2015-10-11 17:50 ` [PATCH 4/6] btrfs: add comments to barriers before waitqueue_active David Sterba
@ 2015-10-11 17:50 ` David Sterba
2015-10-11 17:50 ` [PATCH 6/6] btrfs: comment the rest of implicit barriers " David Sterba
5 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: David Sterba @ 2015-10-11 17:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-btrfs; +Cc: David Sterba
Removing barriers is scary, but a call to atomic_dec_and_test implies
a barrier, so we don't need to issue another one.
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
---
fs/btrfs/tree-log.c | 8 ++++++--
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/tree-log.c b/fs/btrfs/tree-log.c
index d0deb4643502..63275594debd 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/tree-log.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/tree-log.c
@@ -229,7 +229,9 @@ int btrfs_pin_log_trans(struct btrfs_root *root)
void btrfs_end_log_trans(struct btrfs_root *root)
{
if (atomic_dec_and_test(&root->log_writers)) {
- smp_mb();
+ /*
+ * Implicit memory barrier after atomic_dec_and_test
+ */
if (waitqueue_active(&root->log_writer_wait))
wake_up(&root->log_writer_wait);
}
@@ -2820,7 +2822,9 @@ int btrfs_sync_log(struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans,
mutex_lock(&log_root_tree->log_mutex);
if (atomic_dec_and_test(&log_root_tree->log_writers)) {
- smp_mb();
+ /*
+ * Implicit memory barrier after atomic_dec_and_test
+ */
if (waitqueue_active(&log_root_tree->log_writer_wait))
wake_up(&log_root_tree->log_writer_wait);
}
--
2.1.3
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread* [PATCH 6/6] btrfs: comment the rest of implicit barriers before waitqueue_active
2015-10-11 17:50 [PULL][PATCH 0/6] Barriers around waitqueue_active (V2) David Sterba
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2015-10-11 17:50 ` [PATCH 5/6] btrfs: remove extra barrier " David Sterba
@ 2015-10-11 17:50 ` David Sterba
5 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: David Sterba @ 2015-10-11 17:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-btrfs; +Cc: David Sterba
There are atomic operations that imply the barrier for waitqueue_active
mixed in an if-condition.
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
---
fs/btrfs/delayed-inode.c | 4 ++++
fs/btrfs/disk-io.c | 3 +++
fs/btrfs/inode.c | 3 +++
fs/btrfs/locking.c | 9 +++++++++
fs/btrfs/volumes.c | 3 +++
5 files changed, 22 insertions(+)
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/delayed-inode.c b/fs/btrfs/delayed-inode.c
index a2ae42720a6a..e0941fbb913c 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/delayed-inode.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/delayed-inode.c
@@ -463,6 +463,10 @@ static int __btrfs_add_delayed_deletion_item(struct btrfs_delayed_node *node,
static void finish_one_item(struct btrfs_delayed_root *delayed_root)
{
int seq = atomic_inc_return(&delayed_root->items_seq);
+
+ /*
+ * atomic_dec_return implies a barrier for waitqueue_active
+ */
if ((atomic_dec_return(&delayed_root->items) <
BTRFS_DELAYED_BACKGROUND || seq % BTRFS_DELAYED_BATCH == 0) &&
waitqueue_active(&delayed_root->wait))
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c b/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c
index 295795aebe0b..379526ffd84d 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c
@@ -802,6 +802,9 @@ static void run_one_async_done(struct btrfs_work *work)
limit = btrfs_async_submit_limit(fs_info);
limit = limit * 2 / 3;
+ /*
+ * atomic_dec_return implies a barrier for waitqueue_active
+ */
if (atomic_dec_return(&fs_info->nr_async_submits) < limit &&
waitqueue_active(&fs_info->async_submit_wait))
wake_up(&fs_info->async_submit_wait);
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/inode.c b/fs/btrfs/inode.c
index 611b66d73e80..7be4abe25e06 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/inode.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/inode.c
@@ -1096,6 +1096,9 @@ static noinline void async_cow_submit(struct btrfs_work *work)
nr_pages = (async_cow->end - async_cow->start + PAGE_CACHE_SIZE) >>
PAGE_CACHE_SHIFT;
+ /*
+ * atomic_sub_return implies a barrier for waitqueue_active
+ */
if (atomic_sub_return(nr_pages, &root->fs_info->async_delalloc_pages) <
5 * 1024 * 1024 &&
waitqueue_active(&root->fs_info->async_submit_wait))
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/locking.c b/fs/btrfs/locking.c
index 03f8630dbaf2..8077461fc56a 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/locking.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/locking.c
@@ -79,6 +79,9 @@ void btrfs_clear_lock_blocking_rw(struct extent_buffer *eb, int rw)
write_lock(&eb->lock);
WARN_ON(atomic_read(&eb->spinning_writers));
atomic_inc(&eb->spinning_writers);
+ /*
+ * atomic_dec_and_test implies a barrier for waitqueue_active
+ */
if (atomic_dec_and_test(&eb->blocking_writers) &&
waitqueue_active(&eb->write_lock_wq))
wake_up(&eb->write_lock_wq);
@@ -86,6 +89,9 @@ void btrfs_clear_lock_blocking_rw(struct extent_buffer *eb, int rw)
BUG_ON(atomic_read(&eb->blocking_readers) == 0);
read_lock(&eb->lock);
atomic_inc(&eb->spinning_readers);
+ /*
+ * atomic_dec_and_test implies a barrier for waitqueue_active
+ */
if (atomic_dec_and_test(&eb->blocking_readers) &&
waitqueue_active(&eb->read_lock_wq))
wake_up(&eb->read_lock_wq);
@@ -229,6 +235,9 @@ void btrfs_tree_read_unlock_blocking(struct extent_buffer *eb)
}
btrfs_assert_tree_read_locked(eb);
WARN_ON(atomic_read(&eb->blocking_readers) == 0);
+ /*
+ * atomic_dec_and_test implies a barrier for waitqueue_active
+ */
if (atomic_dec_and_test(&eb->blocking_readers) &&
waitqueue_active(&eb->read_lock_wq))
wake_up(&eb->read_lock_wq);
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
index 6fc735869c18..ff3527192409 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
@@ -345,6 +345,9 @@ static noinline void run_scheduled_bios(struct btrfs_device *device)
pending = pending->bi_next;
cur->bi_next = NULL;
+ /*
+ * atomic_dec_return implies a barrier for waitqueue_active
+ */
if (atomic_dec_return(&fs_info->nr_async_bios) < limit &&
waitqueue_active(&fs_info->async_submit_wait))
wake_up(&fs_info->async_submit_wait);
--
2.1.3
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread