Re: [PATCH][RFC 13/23]: Export of alloc_io_context() function

Vladislav Bolkhovitin
2008-12-12T19:17:18Z

Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 11 2008, Vladislav Bolkhovitin wrote:
>> Jens Axboe wrote:
>>> On Thu, Dec 11 2008, Vladislav Bolkhovitin wrote:
>>>> Jens Axboe wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, Dec 10 2008, Vladislav Bolkhovitin wrote:
>>>>>> This patch exports alloc_io_context() function. For performance reasons
>>>>>> SCST queues commands using a pool of IO threads. It is considerably
>>>>>> better for performance (>30% increase on sequential reads) if threads
>>>>>> in a pool have the same IO context. Since SCST can be built as a
>>>>>> module, it needs alloc_io_context() function exported.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Vladislav Bolkhovitin <vst@vlnb.net>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> block/blk-ioc.c | 1 +
>>>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff -upkr linux-2.6.27.2/block/blk-ioc.c linux-2.6.27.2/block/blk-ioc.c
>>>>>> --- linux-2.6.27.2/block/blk-ioc.c 2008-10-10 02:13:53.000000000 +0400
>>>>>> +++ linux-2.6.27.2/block/blk-ioc.c 2008-11-25 21:27:01.000000000 +0300
>>>>>> @@ -105,6 +105,7 @@ struct io_context *alloc_io_context(gfp_
>>>>>>
>>>>>> return ret;
>>>>>> }
>>>>>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(alloc_io_context);
>>>>> Why is this needed, can't you just use CLONE_IO?
>>>> There are two reasons for that:
>>>>
>>>> 1. kthread interface doesn't support passing CLONE_IO flag.
>>> Then you fix that instead of working around it! :-)
>> It doesn't worth the effort, because of (2) below.
>>
>>>> 2. Each (virtual) device has own pool of threads, which serves it.
>>>> Threads in each such pools should have a common IO context, but
>>>> different pools should have different IO contexts. So, it would be
>>>> necessary to implement two levels start of IO threads in each pool. At
>>>> first, one thread would be started. Then it would call get_io_context()
>>>> to gain io_context. Then it would create the remaining threads with
>>>> CLONE_IO flag. Definitely, it's a lot more complicated than a simple
>>>> call of alloc_io_context() and assignment of the returned context to
>>>> each just created thread in a loop before they were ran.
>>> Just start the first thread without CLONE_IO, and subsequent threads
>>> fork off that with CLONE_IO set?
>> Yes, that would be the two stages threads creation. A *LOT* more
>> complicated, than with the direct io_context assignment using
>> alloc_io_context().
>>
>>> I think we need to make sure that we
>>> allocate an IO context for the 'parent' if it doesn't have one already
>>> and CLONE_IO is set, but that is something that can easily be rectified.
>> Sorry, I don't feel I understood you here..
>
> Sure I understand that it's then a two-stage rocket for the first
> context you fork off. I don't see how you qualify that as a *LOT* more
> complicated...

It would be a split of logic, which can be handled in one place to be
handled in two places. Hence, harder to implement, understand and
maintain. It's always something to avoid.

Actually, there is another, simpler method to achieve the same what
alloc_io_context() does, without exporting it:

struct io_context *ioc, *t;
*t = current->io_context;
current->io_context = NULL;
ioc = get_io_context(GFP_KERNEL, -1);
current->io_context = t;

But, I believe, you won't like such dirty hacking even more ;-)

>>> It may seem more complex, but if you use this approach you are pretty
>>> much free to worry about any changes in the future there.
>> Worrying about future changes is regular in Linux kernel, where there is
>> no stable API ;-)
>
> Sure, but if your stuff gets merged then *I* have to fiddle with your
> stuff as well when making changes. If you plan to keep your stuff out of
> the kernel and maintain it there, fine, but I think you probably don't.
>
> It's not a HUGE deal for this case, since you basically just want to use
> alloc_io_context() and ioc_task_link(). So we can make the export and be
> done with it.

Thanks!