From: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>
To: Shaohua Li <shli@kernel.org>
Cc: Dan Williams <djbw@fb.com>, linux-raid@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch]raid5: make release_stripe lockless
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 13:28:42 +1100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130328132842.388ba4b3@notabene.brown> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20130328020004.GB17351@kernel.org>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2165 bytes --]
On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 10:00:04 +0800 Shaohua Li <shli@kernel.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 11:45:46AM +1100, NeilBrown wrote:
> > On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 14:36:17 +0800 Shaohua Li <shli@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Subject: raid5: make release_stripe lockless
> > >
> > > release_stripe still has big lock contention. We just add the stripe to a llist
> > > without taking device_lock. We let the raid5d thread to do the real stripe
> > > release, which must hold device_lock anyway. In this way, release_stripe
> > > doesn't hold any locks.
> > >
> > > The side effect is the released stripes order is changed. But sounds not a big
> > > deal, stripes are never handled in order. And I thought block layer can already
> > > do nice request merge, which means order isn't that important.
> > >
> > > I kept the unplug release batch, which is unnecessary with this patch from lock
> > > contention avoid point of view, and actually if we delete it, the stripe_head
> > > release_list and lru can share storage. But the unplug release batch is also
> > > helpful for request merge. We probably can delay wakeup raid5d till unplug, but
> > > I'm still afraid of the case which raid5d is running.
> >
> > Looks good, thanks.
> >
> > One comment:
> >
> >
> > > +/* should hold conf->device_lock already */
> > > +static int release_stripe_list(struct r5conf *conf)
> > > +{
> > > + struct stripe_head *sh;
> > > + struct llist_node *node;
> > > + int count = 0;
> > > +
> > > + while (1) {
> > > + node = llist_del_first(&conf->released_stripes);
> > > + if (!node)
> > > + break;
> >
> > Why not:
> > llist_for_each_entry(sh, llist_delete_all(&conf->released_stripes), release_list) {
> > clear_bit()
> > __release_stripe(conf, sh);
> > count++;
> > }
>
> This absolutly is ok too. I didn't clearly remember why I do it in my way,
> maybe because new entry can be added. If you prefer llist_for_each_entry(), I
> can change it.
I already changed it :-)
http://git.neil.brown.name/git?p=md.git;a=commitdiff;h=023a4ef1fc49d060ab6f5e69146e56ef885375dc
Thanks,
NeilBrown
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 828 bytes --]
prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-03-28 2:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-03-18 4:31 [patch]raid5: make release_stripe lockless Shaohua Li
2013-03-19 21:53 ` Dan Williams
2013-03-20 0:55 ` Shaohua Li
2013-03-22 6:36 ` Shaohua Li
2013-03-28 0:45 ` NeilBrown
2013-03-28 2:00 ` Shaohua Li
2013-03-28 2:28 ` NeilBrown [this message]
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=20130328132842.388ba4b3@notabene.brown \
--to=neilb@suse.de \
--cc=djbw@fb.com \
--cc=linux-raid@vger.kernel.org \
--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).