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 --]
next prev parent 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).