linux-raid.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>
To: Shaohua Li <shli@kernel.org>
Cc: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org, axboe@kernel.dk,
	dan.j.williams@intel.com, shli@fusionio.com
Subject: Re: [patch 03/10 v3] raid5: add a per-stripe lock
Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2012 10:50:46 +1000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120702105046.56cd47ec@notabene.brown> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120625072613.620625574@kernel.org>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 6119 bytes --]

On Mon, 25 Jun 2012 15:24:50 +0800 Shaohua Li <shli@kernel.org> wrote:

> Add a per-stripe lock to protect stripe specific data, like dev->read,
> written, ... The purpose is to reduce lock contention of conf->device_lock.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Shaohua Li <shli@fusionio.com>

I had hoped to avoid having a per-stripe lock again, but it does look like it
is needed.
However I don't like the way you have split up these three patches - it makes
them a little hard to review.

I would like to see one patch which converts the bi_phys_segments access to
be atomic and also removes all the spin_lock calls that were just for
protecting that.

Then another patch which adds the new stripe_lock, clearly documenting
exactly what is protects (not just "like dev->read" but an explicit list)
and also removes any spin_lock of device_lock that is no longer needed.

Then I could see what is being added and what is being removed all in the one
patch and I can be sure that they balance.

Thanks,
NeilBrown


> ---
>  drivers/md/raid5.c |   17 +++++++++++++++++
>  drivers/md/raid5.h |    1 +
>  2 files changed, 18 insertions(+)
> 
> Index: linux/drivers/md/raid5.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux.orig/drivers/md/raid5.c	2012-06-25 14:36:57.280096788 +0800
> +++ linux/drivers/md/raid5.c	2012-06-25 14:37:13.651888057 +0800
> @@ -751,6 +751,7 @@ static void ops_complete_biofill(void *s
>  
>  	/* clear completed biofills */
>  	spin_lock_irq(&conf->device_lock);
> +	spin_lock(&sh->stripe_lock);
>  	for (i = sh->disks; i--; ) {
>  		struct r5dev *dev = &sh->dev[i];
>  
> @@ -776,6 +777,7 @@ static void ops_complete_biofill(void *s
>  			}
>  		}
>  	}
> +	spin_unlock(&sh->stripe_lock);
>  	spin_unlock_irq(&conf->device_lock);
>  	clear_bit(STRIPE_BIOFILL_RUN, &sh->state);
>  
> @@ -800,8 +802,10 @@ static void ops_run_biofill(struct strip
>  		if (test_bit(R5_Wantfill, &dev->flags)) {
>  			struct bio *rbi;
>  			spin_lock_irq(&conf->device_lock);
> +			spin_lock(&sh->stripe_lock);
>  			dev->read = rbi = dev->toread;
>  			dev->toread = NULL;
> +			spin_unlock(&sh->stripe_lock);
>  			spin_unlock_irq(&conf->device_lock);
>  			while (rbi && rbi->bi_sector <
>  				dev->sector + STRIPE_SECTORS) {
> @@ -1139,10 +1143,12 @@ ops_run_biodrain(struct stripe_head *sh,
>  			struct bio *wbi;
>  
>  			spin_lock_irq(&sh->raid_conf->device_lock);
> +			spin_lock(&sh->stripe_lock);
>  			chosen = dev->towrite;
>  			dev->towrite = NULL;
>  			BUG_ON(dev->written);
>  			wbi = dev->written = chosen;
> +			spin_unlock(&sh->stripe_lock);
>  			spin_unlock_irq(&sh->raid_conf->device_lock);
>  
>  			while (wbi && wbi->bi_sector <
> @@ -1448,6 +1454,8 @@ static int grow_one_stripe(struct r5conf
>  	init_waitqueue_head(&sh->ops.wait_for_ops);
>  	#endif
>  
> +	spin_lock_init(&sh->stripe_lock);
> +
>  	if (grow_buffers(sh)) {
>  		shrink_buffers(sh);
>  		kmem_cache_free(conf->slab_cache, sh);
> @@ -2329,6 +2337,7 @@ static int add_stripe_bio(struct stripe_
>  
>  
>  	spin_lock_irq(&conf->device_lock);
> +	spin_lock(&sh->stripe_lock);
>  	if (forwrite) {
>  		bip = &sh->dev[dd_idx].towrite;
>  		if (*bip == NULL && sh->dev[dd_idx].written == NULL)
> @@ -2362,6 +2371,7 @@ static int add_stripe_bio(struct stripe_
>  		if (sector >= sh->dev[dd_idx].sector + STRIPE_SECTORS)
>  			set_bit(R5_OVERWRITE, &sh->dev[dd_idx].flags);
>  	}
> +	spin_unlock(&sh->stripe_lock);
>  	spin_unlock_irq(&conf->device_lock);
>  
>  	pr_debug("added bi b#%llu to stripe s#%llu, disk %d.\n",
> @@ -2378,6 +2388,7 @@ static int add_stripe_bio(struct stripe_
>  
>   overlap:
>  	set_bit(R5_Overlap, &sh->dev[dd_idx].flags);
> +	spin_unlock(&sh->stripe_lock);
>  	spin_unlock_irq(&conf->device_lock);
>  	return 0;
>  }
> @@ -2429,6 +2440,7 @@ handle_failed_stripe(struct r5conf *conf
>  			}
>  		}
>  		spin_lock_irq(&conf->device_lock);
> +		spin_lock(&sh->stripe_lock);
>  		/* fail all writes first */
>  		bi = sh->dev[i].towrite;
>  		sh->dev[i].towrite = NULL;
> @@ -2490,6 +2502,7 @@ handle_failed_stripe(struct r5conf *conf
>  				bi = nextbi;
>  			}
>  		}
> +		spin_unlock(&sh->stripe_lock);
>  		spin_unlock_irq(&conf->device_lock);
>  		if (bitmap_end)
>  			bitmap_endwrite(conf->mddev->bitmap, sh->sector,
> @@ -2697,6 +2710,7 @@ static void handle_stripe_clean_event(st
>  				int bitmap_end = 0;
>  				pr_debug("Return write for disc %d\n", i);
>  				spin_lock_irq(&conf->device_lock);
> +				spin_lock(&sh->stripe_lock);
>  				wbi = dev->written;
>  				dev->written = NULL;
>  				while (wbi && wbi->bi_sector <
> @@ -2711,6 +2725,7 @@ static void handle_stripe_clean_event(st
>  				}
>  				if (dev->towrite == NULL)
>  					bitmap_end = 1;
> +				spin_unlock(&sh->stripe_lock);
>  				spin_unlock_irq(&conf->device_lock);
>  				if (bitmap_end)
>  					bitmap_endwrite(conf->mddev->bitmap,
> @@ -3170,6 +3185,7 @@ static void analyse_stripe(struct stripe
>  	/* Now to look around and see what can be done */
>  	rcu_read_lock();
>  	spin_lock_irq(&conf->device_lock);
> +	spin_lock(&sh->stripe_lock);
>  	for (i=disks; i--; ) {
>  		struct md_rdev *rdev;
>  		sector_t first_bad;
> @@ -3315,6 +3331,7 @@ static void analyse_stripe(struct stripe
>  				do_recovery = 1;
>  		}
>  	}
> +	spin_unlock(&sh->stripe_lock);
>  	spin_unlock_irq(&conf->device_lock);
>  	if (test_bit(STRIPE_SYNCING, &sh->state)) {
>  		/* If there is a failed device being replaced,
> Index: linux/drivers/md/raid5.h
> ===================================================================
> --- linux.orig/drivers/md/raid5.h	2012-06-25 14:36:13.940638627 +0800
> +++ linux/drivers/md/raid5.h	2012-06-25 14:37:13.651888057 +0800
> @@ -210,6 +210,7 @@ struct stripe_head {
>  	int			disks;		/* disks in stripe */
>  	enum check_states	check_state;
>  	enum reconstruct_states reconstruct_state;
> +	spinlock_t		stripe_lock;
>  	/**
>  	 * struct stripe_operations
>  	 * @target - STRIPE_OP_COMPUTE_BLK target


[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 828 bytes --]

  reply	other threads:[~2012-07-02  0:50 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2012-06-25  7:24 [patch 00/10 v3] raid5: improve write performance for fast storage Shaohua Li
2012-06-25  7:24 ` [patch 01/10 v3] raid5: use wake_up_all for overlap waking Shaohua Li
2012-06-28  7:26   ` NeilBrown
2012-06-28  8:53     ` Shaohua Li
2012-06-25  7:24 ` [patch 02/10 v3] raid5: delayed stripe fix Shaohua Li
2012-07-02  0:46   ` NeilBrown
2012-07-02  0:49     ` Shaohua Li
2012-07-02  0:55       ` NeilBrown
2012-06-25  7:24 ` [patch 03/10 v3] raid5: add a per-stripe lock Shaohua Li
2012-07-02  0:50   ` NeilBrown [this message]
2012-07-02  3:16     ` Shaohua Li
2012-07-02  7:39       ` NeilBrown
2012-07-03  1:27         ` Shaohua Li
2012-07-03 12:16         ` majianpeng
2012-07-03 23:56           ` NeilBrown
2012-07-04  1:09             ` majianpeng
2012-06-25  7:24 ` [patch 04/10 v3] raid5: lockless access raid5 overrided bi_phys_segments Shaohua Li
2012-06-25  7:24 ` [patch 05/10 v3] raid5: remove some device_lock locking places Shaohua Li
2012-06-25  7:24 ` [patch 06/10 v3] raid5: reduce chance release_stripe() taking device_lock Shaohua Li
2012-07-02  0:57   ` NeilBrown
2012-06-25  7:24 ` [patch 07/10 v3] md: personality can provide unplug private data Shaohua Li
2012-07-02  1:06   ` NeilBrown
2012-06-25  7:24 ` [patch 08/10 v3] raid5: make_request use batch stripe release Shaohua Li
2012-07-02  2:31   ` NeilBrown
2012-07-02  2:59     ` Shaohua Li
2012-07-02  5:07       ` NeilBrown
2012-06-25  7:24 ` [patch 09/10 v3] raid5: raid5d handle stripe in batch way Shaohua Li
2012-07-02  2:32   ` NeilBrown
2012-06-25  7:24 ` [patch 10/10 v3] raid5: create multiple threads to handle stripes Shaohua Li
2012-07-02  2:39   ` NeilBrown
2012-07-02 20:03   ` Dan Williams
2012-07-03  8:04     ` Shaohua Li

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=20120702105046.56cd47ec@notabene.brown \
    --to=neilb@suse.de \
    --cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
    --cc=dan.j.williams@intel.com \
    --cc=linux-raid@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=shli@fusionio.com \
    --cc=shli@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).