Re: [PATCH 2/9] xfs: xfs_buf_ioend and xfs_buf_iodone_work duplicate functionality

Brian Foster
2014-08-18T14:16:04Z

On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 09:21:35AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 09:18:21AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 04:39:00PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > From: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com>
> > >
> > > We do some work in xfs_buf_ioend, and some work in
> > > xfs_buf_iodone_work, but much of that functionality is the same.
> > > This work can all be done in a single function, leaving
> > > xfs_buf_iodone just a wrapper to determine if we should execute it
> > > by workqueue or directly. hence rename xfs_buf_iodone_work to
> > > xfs_buf_ioend(), and add a new xfs_buf_ioend_async() for places that
> > > need async processing.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com>
> > > ---
> > > fs/xfs/xfs_buf.c | 79 +++++++++++++++++++++---------------------------
> > > fs/xfs/xfs_buf.h | 2 +-
> > > fs/xfs/xfs_buf_item.c | 4 +--
> > > fs/xfs/xfs_inode.c | 2 +-
> > > fs/xfs/xfs_log.c | 2 +-
> > > fs/xfs/xfs_log_recover.c | 2 +-
> > > 6 files changed, 40 insertions(+), 51 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_buf.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_buf.c
> > > index 5d86bbd..1b7f0bc 100644
> > > --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_buf.c
> > > +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_buf.c
> > > @@ -999,54 +999,49 @@ xfs_buf_wait_unpin(
> > > */
> > >
> > > STATIC void
> > > -xfs_buf_iodone_work(
> > > - struct work_struct *work)
> > > +xfs_buf_ioend(
> > > + struct xfs_buf *bp)
> >
> > Compile failure here due to STATIC.
> >
> > > {
> > > - struct xfs_buf *bp =
> > > - container_of(work, xfs_buf_t, b_iodone_work);
> > > - bool read = !!(bp->b_flags & XBF_READ);
> > > + bool read = !!(bp->b_flags & XBF_READ);
> > > +
> > > + trace_xfs_buf_iodone(bp, _RET_IP_);
> > >
> > > bp->b_flags &= ~(XBF_READ | XBF_WRITE | XBF_READ_AHEAD);
> > >
> > > - /* only validate buffers that were read without errors */
> > > - if (read && bp->b_ops && !bp->b_error && (bp->b_flags & XBF_DONE))
> > > - bp->b_ops->verify_read(bp);
> > > + if (!bp->b_error) {
> > > + bp->b_flags |= XBF_DONE;
> > > +
> > > + /* only validate buffers that were read without errors */
> > > + if (read && bp->b_ops)
> > > + bp->b_ops->verify_read(bp);
> > > + }
> >
> > Probably not a cause of errors, but this code is now executed twice for
> > I/O with b_iodone callbacks.
>
> reads don't have b_iodone callbacks.
>

Ah, Ok.

> > Once for the initial call from bio_end_io,
> > again from the callback via the b_iodone handler. The flags bits are
> > probably fine, but we don't want to be running the verifiers multiple
> > times unnecessarily.
>
> Which we don't ;)
>

Good point, but that's still a landmine IMO. It looks like the previous
code would avoid it for sync I/O, but not for async. You could probably
avoid it generally via a new flag or just by going off of XBF_DONE. The
latter seems logical to me. A comment wouldn't hurt either.

> > > @@ -1425,10 +1412,12 @@ xfs_buf_iorequest(
> > > * waiting, and in the synchronous IO case it avoids unnecessary context
> > > * switches an latency for high-peformance devices.
> > > */
> > > - if (bp->b_error || !(bp->b_flags & XBF_ASYNC))
> > > - _xfs_buf_ioend(bp, 0);
> > > - else
> > > - _xfs_buf_ioend(bp, 1);
> > > + if (atomic_dec_and_test(&bp->b_io_remaining) == 1) {
> > > + if (bp->b_error || !(bp->b_flags & XBF_ASYNC))
> > > + xfs_buf_ioend(bp);
> > > + else
> > > + xfs_buf_ioend_async(bp);
> > > + }
> >
> > This looks cleaner, but the comment is out of whack at this point.
>
> The code is functionally identical, so the comment didn't get
> changed. As it is, the behaviour that exists in this patch goes away
> in later patches, so it's mostly irrelevant that a comment is
> absoultely correct in an intermediate point within the patch set.
>

This was just a minor point that the comment refers to _xfs_buf_ioend().
That obviously no longer exists but the comment is still around at the
end of the series.

Brian

> Cheers,
>
> Dave.
> --
> Dave Chinner
> david@fromorbit.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> xfs mailing list
> xfs@oss.sgi.com
> http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs