From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
To: axboe@kernel.dk
Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH 1/6] writeback: fix writeback completion notifications
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2010 18:14:34 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100608161434.GB11735@lst.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100608161424.GA11735@lst.de>
The code dealing with bdi_work->state and completion of a bdi_work is a
major mess currently. This patch makes sure we directly use one set of
flags to deal with it, and use it consistently, which means:
- always notify about completion from the rcu callback. We only ever
wait for it from on-stack callers, so this simplification does not
even cause a theoretical slowdown currently. It also makes sure we
don't miss out on the notification if we ever add other callers to
wait for it.
- make earlier completion notification depending on the on-stack
allocation, not the sync mode. If we introduce new callers that
want to do WB_SYNC_NONE writeback from on-stack callers this will
be nessecary.
Also rename bdi_wait_on_work_clear to bdi_wait_on_work_done and inline
a few small functions into their only caller to make the code
understandable.
Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Index: linux-2.6/fs/fs-writeback.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.orig/fs/fs-writeback.c 2010-06-08 16:17:45.781254323 +0200
+++ linux-2.6/fs/fs-writeback.c 2010-06-08 16:20:11.916005756 +0200
@@ -63,24 +63,16 @@ struct bdi_work {
};
enum {
- WS_USED_B = 0,
- WS_ONSTACK_B,
+ WS_INPROGRESS = 0,
+ WS_ONSTACK,
};
-#define WS_USED (1 << WS_USED_B)
-#define WS_ONSTACK (1 << WS_ONSTACK_B)
-
-static inline bool bdi_work_on_stack(struct bdi_work *work)
-{
- return test_bit(WS_ONSTACK_B, &work->state);
-}
-
static inline void bdi_work_init(struct bdi_work *work,
struct wb_writeback_args *args)
{
INIT_RCU_HEAD(&work->rcu_head);
work->args = *args;
- work->state = WS_USED;
+ __set_bit(WS_INPROGRESS, &work->state);
}
/**
@@ -95,43 +87,16 @@ int writeback_in_progress(struct backing
return !list_empty(&bdi->work_list);
}
-static void bdi_work_clear(struct bdi_work *work)
-{
- clear_bit(WS_USED_B, &work->state);
- smp_mb__after_clear_bit();
- /*
- * work can have disappeared at this point. bit waitq functions
- * should be able to tolerate this, provided bdi_sched_wait does
- * not dereference it's pointer argument.
- */
- wake_up_bit(&work->state, WS_USED_B);
-}
-
static void bdi_work_free(struct rcu_head *head)
{
struct bdi_work *work = container_of(head, struct bdi_work, rcu_head);
- if (!bdi_work_on_stack(work))
- kfree(work);
- else
- bdi_work_clear(work);
-}
-
-static void wb_work_complete(struct bdi_work *work)
-{
- const enum writeback_sync_modes sync_mode = work->args.sync_mode;
- int onstack = bdi_work_on_stack(work);
+ clear_bit(WS_INPROGRESS, &work->state);
+ smp_mb__after_clear_bit();
+ wake_up_bit(&work->state, WS_INPROGRESS);
- /*
- * For allocated work, we can clear the done/seen bit right here.
- * For on-stack work, we need to postpone both the clear and free
- * to after the RCU grace period, since the stack could be invalidated
- * as soon as bdi_work_clear() has done the wakeup.
- */
- if (!onstack)
- bdi_work_clear(work);
- if (sync_mode == WB_SYNC_NONE || onstack)
- call_rcu(&work->rcu_head, bdi_work_free);
+ if (!test_bit(WS_ONSTACK, &work->state))
+ kfree(work);
}
static void wb_clear_pending(struct bdi_writeback *wb, struct bdi_work *work)
@@ -147,7 +112,7 @@ static void wb_clear_pending(struct bdi_
list_del_rcu(&work->list);
spin_unlock(&bdi->wb_lock);
- wb_work_complete(work);
+ call_rcu(&work->rcu_head, bdi_work_free);
}
}
@@ -185,9 +150,9 @@ static void bdi_queue_work(struct backin
* Used for on-stack allocated work items. The caller needs to wait until
* the wb threads have acked the work before it's safe to continue.
*/
-static void bdi_wait_on_work_clear(struct bdi_work *work)
+static void bdi_wait_on_work_done(struct bdi_work *work)
{
- wait_on_bit(&work->state, WS_USED_B, bdi_sched_wait,
+ wait_on_bit(&work->state, WS_INPROGRESS, bdi_sched_wait,
TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
}
@@ -234,10 +199,10 @@ static void bdi_sync_writeback(struct ba
struct bdi_work work;
bdi_work_init(&work, &args);
- work.state |= WS_ONSTACK;
+ __set_bit(WS_ONSTACK, &work.state);
bdi_queue_work(bdi, &work);
- bdi_wait_on_work_clear(&work);
+ bdi_wait_on_work_done(&work);
}
/**
@@ -911,7 +876,7 @@ long wb_do_writeback(struct bdi_writebac
* If this isn't a data integrity operation, just notify
* that we have seen this work and we are now starting it.
*/
- if (args.sync_mode == WB_SYNC_NONE)
+ if (!test_bit(WS_ONSTACK, &work->state))
wb_clear_pending(wb, work);
wrote += wb_writeback(wb, &args);
@@ -920,7 +885,7 @@ long wb_do_writeback(struct bdi_writebac
* This is a data integrity writeback, so only do the
* notification when we have completed the work.
*/
- if (args.sync_mode == WB_SYNC_ALL)
+ if (test_bit(WS_ONSTACK, &work->state))
wb_clear_pending(wb, work);
}
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-06-08 16:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-06-08 16:14 [PATCH 0/6] writeback fixes - slow unmount and others Christoph Hellwig
2010-06-08 16:14 ` Christoph Hellwig [this message]
2010-06-08 19:50 ` [PATCH 1/6] writeback: fix writeback completion notifications Jens Axboe
2010-06-15 17:25 ` Jan Kara
2010-06-15 17:30 ` Christoph Hellwig
2010-06-08 16:14 ` [PATCH 2/6] writeback: queue work on stack in writeback_inodes_sb Christoph Hellwig
2010-06-08 19:51 ` Jens Axboe
2010-06-08 16:14 ` [PATCH 3/6] writeback: enforce s_umount locking " Christoph Hellwig
2010-06-15 17:54 ` Jan Kara
2010-06-15 17:59 ` Christoph Hellwig
2010-06-15 18:04 ` Jan Kara
2010-06-08 16:14 ` [PATCH 4/6] writeback: fix writeback_inodes_wb from writeback_inodes_sb Christoph Hellwig
2010-06-08 19:51 ` Jens Axboe
2010-06-09 12:25 ` Christoph Hellwig
2010-06-09 12:29 ` Jens Axboe
2010-06-08 16:15 ` [PATCH 5/6] writeback: simplify wakeup_flusher_threads Christoph Hellwig
2010-06-08 19:51 ` Jens Axboe
2010-06-08 16:15 ` [PATCH 6/6] writeback: simplify and split bdi_start_writeback Christoph Hellwig
2010-06-08 19:52 ` Jens Axboe
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=20100608161434.GB11735@lst.de \
--to=hch@lst.de \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
/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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).