public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@kvack.org>,
	linux-aio@kvack.org, Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: [PATCH] block: Simplify bsg complete all
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2015 11:18:49 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150204101849.GC2896@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <54D158C7.6020606@kernel.dk>

On Tue, Feb 03, 2015 at 04:24:55PM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
> 
> Yes, from a cursory look, that seems fine to me. Though I will hold the fact
> that you label my code as 'seriously obtuse' against you. Some day.

Hehe, fair enough. I'm sure I've written my fair share of it too, we've
all got our 'bad' days, I'll get you a beer in BOS to make up if you
like :-)

> I can pull this in for testing for 3.20. Mind sending a properly formatted
> patch (signed off, commit message, all that stuff)?

Sure, here goes.


---
Subject: block: Simplify bsg complete all
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2015 12:55:31 +0100

It took me a few tries to figure out what this code did; lets rewrite
it into a more regular form.

The thing that makes this one 'special' is the BSG_F_BLOCK flag, if
that is not set we're not supposed/allowed to block and should spin
wait for completion.

The (new) io_wait_event() will never see a false condition in case of
the spinning and we will therefore not block.

Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
---
 block/bsg.c          |   72 +++++++++++++++++----------------------------------
 include/linux/wait.h |   15 ++++++++++
 2 files changed, 40 insertions(+), 47 deletions(-)

--- a/block/bsg.c
+++ b/block/bsg.c
@@ -136,42 +136,6 @@ static inline struct hlist_head *bsg_dev
 	return &bsg_device_list[index & (BSG_LIST_ARRAY_SIZE - 1)];
 }
 
-static int bsg_io_schedule(struct bsg_device *bd)
-{
-	DEFINE_WAIT(wait);
-	int ret = 0;
-
-	spin_lock_irq(&bd->lock);
-
-	BUG_ON(bd->done_cmds > bd->queued_cmds);
-
-	/*
-	 * -ENOSPC or -ENODATA?  I'm going for -ENODATA, meaning "I have no
-	 * work to do", even though we return -ENOSPC after this same test
-	 * during bsg_write() -- there, it means our buffer can't have more
-	 * bsg_commands added to it, thus has no space left.
-	 */
-	if (bd->done_cmds == bd->queued_cmds) {
-		ret = -ENODATA;
-		goto unlock;
-	}
-
-	if (!test_bit(BSG_F_BLOCK, &bd->flags)) {
-		ret = -EAGAIN;
-		goto unlock;
-	}
-
-	prepare_to_wait(&bd->wq_done, &wait, TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
-	spin_unlock_irq(&bd->lock);
-	io_schedule();
-	finish_wait(&bd->wq_done, &wait);
-
-	return ret;
-unlock:
-	spin_unlock_irq(&bd->lock);
-	return ret;
-}
-
 static int blk_fill_sgv4_hdr_rq(struct request_queue *q, struct request *rq,
 				struct sg_io_v4 *hdr, struct bsg_device *bd,
 				fmode_t has_write_perm)
@@ -482,6 +446,30 @@ static int blk_complete_sgv4_hdr_rq(stru
 	return ret;
 }
 
+static bool bsg_complete(struct bsg_device *bd)
+{
+	bool ret = false;
+	bool spin;
+
+	do {
+		spin_lock_irq(&bd->lock);
+
+		BUG_ON(bd->done_cmds > bd->queued_cmds);
+
+		/*
+		 * All commands consumed.
+		 */
+		if (bd->done_cmds == bd->queued_cmds)
+			ret = true;
+
+		spin = !test_bit(BSG_F_BLOCK, &bd->flags);
+
+		spin_unlock_irq(&bd->lock);
+	} while (!ret && spin);
+
+	return ret;
+}
+
 static int bsg_complete_all_commands(struct bsg_device *bd)
 {
 	struct bsg_command *bc;
@@ -492,17 +480,7 @@ static int bsg_complete_all_commands(str
 	/*
 	 * wait for all commands to complete
 	 */
-	ret = 0;
-	do {
-		ret = bsg_io_schedule(bd);
-		/*
-		 * look for -ENODATA specifically -- we'll sometimes get
-		 * -ERESTARTSYS when we've taken a signal, but we can't
-		 * return until we're done freeing the queue, so ignore
-		 * it.  The signal will get handled when we're done freeing
-		 * the bsg_device.
-		 */
-	} while (ret != -ENODATA);
+	io_wait_event(bd->wq_done, bsg_complete(bd));
 
 	/*
 	 * discard done commands
--- a/include/linux/wait.h
+++ b/include/linux/wait.h
@@ -267,6 +267,21 @@ do {									\
 	__wait_event(wq, condition);					\
 } while (0)
 
+#define __io_wait_event(wq, condition)					\
+	(void)___wait_event(wq, condition, TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE, 0, 0,	\
+			    io_schedule())
+
+/*
+ * io_wait_event() -- like wait_event() but with io_schedule()
+ */
+#define io_wait_event(wq, condition)					\
+do {									\
+	might_sleep();							\
+	if (condition)							\
+		break;							\
+	__io_wait_event(wq, condition);					\
+} while (0)
+
 #define __wait_event_freezable(wq, condition)				\
 	___wait_event(wq, condition, TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE, 0, 0,		\
 			    schedule(); try_to_freeze())

  reply	other threads:[~2015-02-04 10:19 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-02-01 14:40 [GIT PULL] aio: fix sleeping while TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE Benjamin LaHaise
2015-02-01 21:01 ` Linus Torvalds
2015-02-01 22:14   ` Benjamin LaHaise
2015-02-01 23:09     ` Linus Torvalds
2015-02-01 23:33     ` Linus Torvalds
2015-02-02  0:16       ` Benjamin LaHaise
2015-02-02  1:18         ` Linus Torvalds
2015-02-02  5:29           ` Dave Chinner
     [not found]             ` <CA+55aFwvEcq-rAbqF2qTut=kJgFZZnhHptoPi6FSVrF4+1tBNA@mail.gmail.com>
2015-02-02  5:54               ` Dave Chinner
2015-02-02 18:45                 ` Linus Torvalds
2015-02-03 22:23                   ` Dave Chinner
2015-02-03 23:34                     ` Benjamin LaHaise
2015-02-03 11:27           ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-02-03 11:33             ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-02-03 11:55               ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-02-03 23:24                 ` Jens Axboe
2015-02-04 10:18                   ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2015-02-04 17:06                     ` [PATCH] block: Simplify bsg complete all Jens Axboe
2015-02-03 12:25             ` [PATCH] iommu/amd: Fix amd_iommu_free_device() Peter Zijlstra
2015-02-03 17:04               ` Jesse Barnes
2015-02-03 17:34               ` Joerg Roedel
2015-02-03 19:23                 ` Linus Torvalds
2015-02-03 22:56                   ` Joerg Roedel
2015-02-04 14:35               ` Joerg Roedel

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=20150204101849.GC2896@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net \
    --to=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
    --cc=bcrl@kvack.org \
    --cc=linux-aio@kvack.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.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