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 06/10 v3] raid5: reduce chance release_stripe() taking device_lock
Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2012 10:57:31 +1000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120702105731.2be963e6@notabene.brown> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120625072641.504876596@kernel.org>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4513 bytes --]

On Mon, 25 Jun 2012 15:24:53 +0800 Shaohua Li <shli@kernel.org> wrote:

> release_stripe() is a place conf->device_lock is heavily contended. We take the
> lock even stripe count isn't 1, which isn't required.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Shaohua Li <shli@fusionio.com>
> ---
>  drivers/md/raid5.c |   73 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------------
>  1 file changed, 40 insertions(+), 33 deletions(-)
> 
> Index: linux/drivers/md/raid5.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux.orig/drivers/md/raid5.c	2012-06-25 14:37:21.000000000 +0800
> +++ linux/drivers/md/raid5.c	2012-06-25 14:38:13.899130571 +0800
> @@ -196,49 +196,56 @@ static int stripe_operations_active(stru
>  	       test_bit(STRIPE_COMPUTE_RUN, &sh->state);
>  }
>  
> -static void __release_stripe(struct r5conf *conf, struct stripe_head *sh)
> +static void handle_release_stripe(struct r5conf *conf, struct stripe_head *sh)
>  {
> -	if (atomic_dec_and_test(&sh->count)) {
> -		BUG_ON(!list_empty(&sh->lru));
> -		BUG_ON(atomic_read(&conf->active_stripes)==0);
> -		if (test_bit(STRIPE_HANDLE, &sh->state)) {
> -			if (test_bit(STRIPE_DELAYED, &sh->state) &&
> -			    !test_bit(STRIPE_PREREAD_ACTIVE, &sh->state))
> -				list_add_tail(&sh->lru, &conf->delayed_list);
> -			else if (test_bit(STRIPE_BIT_DELAY, &sh->state) &&
> -				   sh->bm_seq - conf->seq_write > 0)
> -				list_add_tail(&sh->lru, &conf->bitmap_list);
> -			else {
> -				clear_bit(STRIPE_DELAYED, &sh->state);
> -				clear_bit(STRIPE_BIT_DELAY, &sh->state);
> -				list_add_tail(&sh->lru, &conf->handle_list);
> -			}
> -			md_wakeup_thread(conf->mddev->thread);
> -		} else {
> -			BUG_ON(stripe_operations_active(sh));
> -			if (test_and_clear_bit(STRIPE_PREREAD_ACTIVE, &sh->state))
> -				if (atomic_dec_return(&conf->preread_active_stripes)
> -				    < IO_THRESHOLD)
> -					md_wakeup_thread(conf->mddev->thread);
> -			atomic_dec(&conf->active_stripes);
> -			if (!test_bit(STRIPE_EXPANDING, &sh->state)) {
> -				list_add_tail(&sh->lru, &conf->inactive_list);
> -				wake_up(&conf->wait_for_stripe);
> -				if (conf->retry_read_aligned)
> -					md_wakeup_thread(conf->mddev->thread);
> -			}
> +	BUG_ON(!list_empty(&sh->lru));
> +	BUG_ON(atomic_read(&conf->active_stripes)==0);
> +	if (test_bit(STRIPE_HANDLE, &sh->state)) {
> +		if (test_bit(STRIPE_DELAYED, &sh->state) &&
> +		    !test_bit(STRIPE_PREREAD_ACTIVE, &sh->state))
> +			list_add_tail(&sh->lru, &conf->delayed_list);
> +		else if (test_bit(STRIPE_BIT_DELAY, &sh->state) &&
> +			   sh->bm_seq - conf->seq_write > 0)
> +			list_add_tail(&sh->lru, &conf->bitmap_list);
> +		else {
> +			clear_bit(STRIPE_DELAYED, &sh->state);
> +			clear_bit(STRIPE_BIT_DELAY, &sh->state);
> +			list_add_tail(&sh->lru, &conf->handle_list);
> +		}
> +		md_wakeup_thread(conf->mddev->thread);
> +	} else {
> +		BUG_ON(stripe_operations_active(sh));
> +		if (test_and_clear_bit(STRIPE_PREREAD_ACTIVE, &sh->state))
> +			if (atomic_dec_return(&conf->preread_active_stripes)
> +			    < IO_THRESHOLD)
> +				md_wakeup_thread(conf->mddev->thread);
> +		atomic_dec(&conf->active_stripes);
> +		if (!test_bit(STRIPE_EXPANDING, &sh->state)) {
> +			list_add_tail(&sh->lru, &conf->inactive_list);
> +			wake_up(&conf->wait_for_stripe);
> +			if (conf->retry_read_aligned)
> +				md_wakeup_thread(conf->mddev->thread);
>  		}
>  	}
>  }
>  
> +static void __release_stripe(struct r5conf *conf, struct stripe_head *sh)
> +{
> +	if (atomic_dec_and_test(&sh->count))
> +		handle_release_stripe(conf, sh);
> +}
> +
>  static void release_stripe(struct stripe_head *sh)
>  {
>  	struct r5conf *conf = sh->raid_conf;
>  	unsigned long flags;
>  
> -	spin_lock_irqsave(&conf->device_lock, flags);
> -	__release_stripe(conf, sh);
> -	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&conf->device_lock, flags);
> +	local_irq_save(flags);
> +	if (atomic_dec_and_lock(&sh->count, &conf->device_lock)) {
> +		handle_release_stripe(conf, sh);
> +		spin_unlock(&conf->device_lock);
> +	}
> +	local_irq_restore(flags);
>  }
>  
>  static inline void remove_hash(struct stripe_head *sh)


Thanks.  I've applied this patch and it should appear in my -next shortly.
I renamed "handle_release_stripe" to "do_release_stripe", partly because I
think that is more consistent with practice in Linux, but mostly because
"handle" means something else inside raid5.c and I don't want to encourage
confusion.

Thanks,
NeilBrown

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

  reply	other threads:[~2012-07-02  0:57 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
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 [this message]
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=20120702105731.2be963e6@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).