public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To: Kent Overstreet <koverstreet@google.com>
Cc: linux-bcache@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	dm-devel@redhat.com, axboe@kernel.dk,
	Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>,
	Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@redhat.com>,
	bharrosh@panasas.com, david@fromorbit.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] block: Avoid deadlocks with bio allocation by stacking drivers
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 10:22:10 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120910172210.GC14103@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120910002810.GA23241@moria.home.lan>

Hello, Kent.

On Sun, Sep 09, 2012 at 05:28:10PM -0700, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> > > +	while ((bio = bio_list_pop(current->bio_list)))
> > > +		bio_list_add(bio->bi_pool == bs ? &punt : &nopunt, bio);
> > > +
> > > +	*current->bio_list = nopunt;
> > 
> > Why this is necessary needs explanation and it's done in rather
> > unusual way.  I suppose the weirdness is from bio_list API
> > restriction?
> 
> It's because bio_lists are singly linked, so deleting an entry from the
> middle of the list would be a real pain - just much cleaner/simpler to
> do it this way.

Yeah, I wonder how benefical that singly linked list is.  Eh well...

> > Wouldn't the following be better?
> > 
> > 	p = mempool_alloc(bs->bi_pool, gfp_mask);
> > 	if (unlikely(!p) && gfp_mask != saved_gfp) {
> > 		punt_bios_to_rescuer(bs);
> > 		p = mempool_alloc(bs->bi_pool, saved_gfp);
> > 	}
> 
> That'd require duplicating the error handling in two different places -
> once for the initial allocation, once for the bvec allocation. And I
> really hate that writing code that does
> 
> alloc_something()
> if (fail) {
> 	alloc_something_again()
> }
> 
> it just screams ugly to me.

I don't know.  That at least represents what's going on and goto'ing
back and forth is hardly pretty.  Sometimes the code gets much uglier
/ unwieldy and we have to live with gotos.  Here, that doesn't seem to
be the case.

> +static void punt_bios_to_rescuer(struct bio_set *bs)
> +{
> +	struct bio_list punt, nopunt;
> +	struct bio *bio;
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * Don't want to punt all bios on current->bio_list; if there was a bio
> +	 * on there for a stacking driver higher up in the stack, processing it
> +	 * could require allocating bios from this bio_set, and we don't want to
> +	 * do that from our own rescuer.

Hmmm... isn't it more like we "must" process only the bios which are
from this bio_set to have any kind of forward-progress guarantee?  The
above sounds like it's just something undesirable.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun

  parent reply	other threads:[~2012-09-10 17:22 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2012-09-07 22:12 [PATCH 0/2] Avoid deadlocks with bio allocation Kent Overstreet
2012-09-07 22:12 ` [PATCH 1/2] block: Reorder struct bio_set Kent Overstreet
2012-09-07 22:12 ` [PATCH 2/2] block: Avoid deadlocks with bio allocation by stacking drivers Kent Overstreet
2012-09-08 19:36   ` Tejun Heo
2012-09-10  0:28     ` Kent Overstreet
2012-09-10 15:25       ` Vivek Goyal
2012-09-10 17:22       ` Tejun Heo [this message]
2012-09-10 20:24         ` Kent Overstreet
2012-09-10 20:40           ` Tejun Heo
2012-09-10 21:33             ` Kent Overstreet
2012-09-10 21:37               ` Tejun Heo
2012-09-10 21:56                 ` Kent Overstreet
2012-09-10 22:09                   ` Tejun Heo
2012-09-10 22:50                     ` [dm-devel] " Alasdair G Kergon
2012-09-10 23:01                       ` Tejun Heo
2012-09-10 23:06                         ` Kent Overstreet
2012-09-10 23:09                         ` Alasdair G Kergon
2012-09-10 23:35                           ` Tejun Heo
2012-09-10 23:45                             ` Alasdair G Kergon
2012-09-10 23:01                       ` Kent Overstreet
2012-09-10 23:13                     ` Tejun Heo
2012-09-11 18:36                   ` Muthu Kumar
2012-09-11 18:45                     ` Tejun Heo
2012-09-11 18:58                       ` Muthu Kumar
2012-09-11 19:31                         ` Kent Overstreet
2012-09-11 20:00                           ` Muthu Kumar

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=20120910172210.GC14103@google.com \
    --to=tj@kernel.org \
    --cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
    --cc=bharrosh@panasas.com \
    --cc=david@fromorbit.com \
    --cc=dm-devel@redhat.com \
    --cc=koverstreet@google.com \
    --cc=linux-bcache@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mpatocka@redhat.com \
    --cc=vgoyal@redhat.com \
    /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