From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
To: "Nicholas A. Bellinger" <nab@linux-iscsi.org>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
target-devel <target-devel@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-scsi <linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>, Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] target/iblock: Fix double iblock_complete_cmd callback bug
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2012 14:25:41 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20121116192541.GA25096@infradead.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1353018990.11597.35.camel@haakon2.linux-iscsi.org>
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 02:36:30PM -0800, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote:
> However, setting the default ibr->pending=2 value before dispatch, and
> making a extra iblock_complete_cmd() call from iblock_execute_rw(),
> while doing the normal iblock_complete_cmd() calls from
> iblock_bio_done() is AFAICT a pointless extra atomic_dec_and_test() call
> per I/O.
>
> Was there a reason why you changed ->pending from 1 -> 2 during the
> se_task removal in commit 5787cacd0bd5ee01..?
It is to avoid having the request completed before even submitting all
bios. As soon as one is submitted it could on a very fast device
complete before we've incremented the count for the next bio.
It's a very common scheme used all over the kernel when submitting
I/O in smaller subdivisions.
> So the case this patch tries to avoid is where iblock_submit_bio() is
> called multiple times before the final ibr->pending value is set, this
> could potentially cause bios completion calls to decrement the value +
> complete to core before iblock_execute_rw() is done incrementing
> ibr->pending.
That's exacltly what we try to avoid here.
> How about returning an exception here instead when IBLOCK_MAX_BIOS in
> reached..?
Why? As soon as we kicked the first batch off we're guaranteed to make
progress allocating more as sson as the first of the submitted ones
completes.
> Btw, where did the default of 32 for this come from..?
It's a random number, with the important property that it's considerably
smaller than IBLOCK_BIO_POOL_SIZE.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-11-16 19:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-11-08 19:58 [PATCH] target/iblock: Fix double iblock_complete_cmd callback bug Nicholas A. Bellinger
2012-11-15 10:49 ` Christoph Hellwig
2012-11-15 22:36 ` Nicholas A. Bellinger
2012-11-15 22:50 ` Nicholas A. Bellinger
2012-11-16 19:25 ` Christoph Hellwig [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=20121116192541.GA25096@infradead.org \
--to=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=hch@lst.de \
--cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=nab@linux-iscsi.org \
--cc=target-devel@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).