Re: [PATCH 2/8] xfs: don't wait on future iclogs when pushing the CIL

Dave Chinner
2021-06-17T21:55:21Z

On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 10:49:10AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 06:26:11PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_log_cil.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_log_cil.c
> > index 705619e9dab4..2fb0ab02dda3 100644
> > --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_log_cil.c
> > +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_log_cil.c
> > @@ -1075,15 +1075,54 @@ xlog_cil_push_work(
> > ticket = ctx->ticket;
> >
> > /*
> > - * If the checkpoint spans multiple iclogs, wait for all previous
> > - * iclogs to complete before we submit the commit_iclog. In this case,
> > - * the commit_iclog write needs to issue a pre-flush so that the
> > - * ordering is correctly preserved down to stable storage.
> > + * If the checkpoint spans multiple iclogs, wait for all previous iclogs
> > + * to complete before we submit the commit_iclog. We can't use state
> > + * checks for this - ACTIVE can be either a past completed iclog or a
> > + * future iclog being filled, while WANT_SYNC through SYNC_DONE can be a
> > + * past or future iclog awaiting IO or ordered IO completion to be run.
> > + * In the latter case, if it's a future iclog and we wait on it, the we
> > + * will hang because it won't get processed through to ic_force_wait
> > + * wakeup until this commit_iclog is written to disk. Hence we use the
> > + * iclog header lsn and compare it to the commit lsn to determine if we
> > + * need to wait on iclogs or not.
> > */
> > spin_lock(&log->l_icloglock);
> > if (ctx->start_lsn != commit_lsn) {
> > - xlog_wait_on_iclog(commit_iclog->ic_prev);
> > - spin_lock(&log->l_icloglock);
> > + struct xlog_in_core *iclog;
> > +
> > + for (iclog = commit_iclog->ic_prev;
> > + iclog != commit_iclog;
> > + iclog = iclog->ic_prev) {
> > + xfs_lsn_t hlsn;
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * If the LSN of the iclog is zero or in the future it
> > + * means it has passed through IO completion and
> > + * activation and hence all previous iclogs have also
> > + * done so. We do not need to wait at all in this case.
> > + */
> > + hlsn = be64_to_cpu(iclog->ic_header.h_lsn);
> > + if (!hlsn || XFS_LSN_CMP(hlsn, commit_lsn) > 0)
> > + break;
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * If the LSN of the iclog is older than the commit lsn,
> > + * we have to wait on it. Waiting on this via the
> > + * ic_force_wait should also order the completion of all
> > + * older iclogs, too, but we leave checking that to the
> > + * next loop iteration.
> > + */
> > + ASSERT(XFS_LSN_CMP(hlsn, commit_lsn) < 0);
> > + xlog_wait_on_iclog(iclog);
> > + spin_lock(&log->l_icloglock);
>
> The presence of a loop here confuses me a bit -- we really only need to
> check and wait on commit->ic_prev since xlog_wait_on_iclog waits for
> both the iclog that it is given as well as all previous iclogs, right?

I originally wrote this thinking about using the ic_write_wait queue
which would require checking all iclogs in the ring because the
completion signalled at the DONE_SYNC state is not ordered against
other iclogs. Hence I had planned to walk all the iclogs. THen I
realised that checking the LSN could tell us past/future and so we
only needed to wait on the first iclog with a LSN less than the
commit iclog.

ANd so I left the loop in place to ensure that, even if my assertion
about the ring aging order was incorrect, this code would Do The
Right Thing.

> we've waited on commit->ic_prev, the next iclog iterated (i.e.
> commit->ic_prev->ic_prev) should break out of the loop?

Yes, that is what it does.

I can strip this all out - it was really just being defensive
because I wanted to make sure things were working as I expected them
to be working...

Cheers,

Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com