From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Artem Bityutskiy Subject: Re: [PATCHv6 00/15] kill unnecessary bdi wakeups + cleanups Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2010 17:11:21 +0300 Message-ID: <1280844681.15689.59.camel@localhost> References: <1280057365-10297-1-git-send-email-dedekind1@gmail.com> <4C580B1C.3020409@kernel.dk> Reply-To: dedekind1@gmail.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org To: Jens Axboe Return-path: Received: from smtp.nokia.com ([192.100.105.134]:24382 "EHLO mgw-mx09.nokia.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756585Ab0HCOM0 (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Aug 2010 10:12:26 -0400 In-Reply-To: <4C580B1C.3020409@kernel.dk> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, 2010-08-03 at 14:27 +0200, Jens Axboe wrote: > On 2010-07-25 13:29, Artem Bityutskiy wrote: > > Hi, > >=20 > > here is v6 of the patch series which clean-ups bdi threads and subs= tantially > > lessens amount of unnecessary kernel wake-ups, which is very import= ant on > > battery-powered devices. > >=20 > > This patch-set is also available at: > > git://git.infradead.org/users/dedekind/misc-2.6.git flushers_v6 >=20 > Thanks Artem, for sticking around long enough to get this into > shape. I have finally merged it. >=20 > > 1. Use 'spin_lock_bh' for the 'bdi->wb_lock' (changed patch N12) >=20 > I'd rather not, question is how to avoid it. Either just wakeup the > default thread, or punt the lock-and-check bdi->wb.task to a thread. Jens, here are my quick thoughts, will come back to this tomorrow. The spin_lock_bh(&bdi->wb_lock) in 'wakeup_timer_fn()' is needed: a) to make sure the forker thread does not decide to kill the bdi thread at the same time, which could cause an oops on 'wake_up_process(bdi->wb.task)'. b) to make sure the forker thread does not decide to spawn a bdi thread at the same time, in which case we could lose a wake-up. I without the "_bh" suffix lockdep complains with a warning. Cannot cit= e the complained, but it is a fair warning about a possible deadlock if the timer function interrupts the CPU while it is already holding the spinlock, or something like that. The easiest way to address it was to use "_bh". The only way to avoid "_bh" I see right now is to not 'bdi->wb_lock' at all in 'wakeup_timer_fn()'. In this case we cannot touch 'bdi->wb.task= ' because it can become NULL at any point of time. Your first suggestion ("just wakeup the default thread") will work only if we add a new BDI_wakeup_thread or something like that. Not sure it i= s worth it. The second suggestion ("punt the lock-and-check bdi->wb.task to a thread") is vague. "A thread" - this must be the forker thread, what else could that be? So basically this is the same as the first suggestion - we set a flag in 'bdi->wb.state' and wake up the forker, which should wake up the bdi thread? --=20 Best Regards, Artem Bityutskiy (=D0=90=D1=80=D1=82=D1=91=D0=BC =D0=91=D0=B8=D1=82=D1=8E= =D1=86=D0=BA=D0=B8=D0=B9) -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel= " in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html