From: Patrick Farrell <paf@cray.com>
To: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.com>, Oleg Drokin <oleg.drokin@intel.com>,
"Andreas Dilger" <andreas.dilger@intel.com>,
James Simmons <jsimmons@infradead.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc: lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
lustre <lustre-devel@lists.lustre.org>
Subject: Re: [lustre-devel] [PATCH 08/16] staging: lustre: open code polling loop instead of using l_wait_event()
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 20:55:10 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <D65D86E7.C5E12%paf@cray.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <151358148008.5099.7316878897181140635.stgit@noble>
The lov_check_and_wait_active wait is usually (always?) going to be
asynchronous from userspace and probably shouldn¹t contribute to load.
So I guess that means schedule_timeout_idle.
On 12/18/17, 1:18 AM, "lustre-devel on behalf of NeilBrown"
<lustre-devel-bounces@lists.lustre.org on behalf of neilb@suse.com> wrote:
>Two places that LWI_TIMEOUT_INTERVAL() is used, the outcome is a
>simple polling loop that polls every second for some event (with a
>limit).
>
>So write a simple loop to make this more apparent.
>
>Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.com>
>---
> drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/llite/llite_lib.c | 11 +++++------
> drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/lov/lov_request.c | 12 +++++-------
> 2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
>
>diff --git a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/llite/llite_lib.c
>b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/llite/llite_lib.c
>index 33dc15e9aebb..f6642fa30428 100644
>--- a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/llite/llite_lib.c
>+++ b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/llite/llite_lib.c
>@@ -1984,8 +1984,7 @@ void ll_umount_begin(struct super_block *sb)
> struct ll_sb_info *sbi = ll_s2sbi(sb);
> struct obd_device *obd;
> struct obd_ioctl_data *ioc_data;
>- wait_queue_head_t waitq;
>- struct l_wait_info lwi;
>+ int cnt = 0;
>
> CDEBUG(D_VFSTRACE, "VFS Op: superblock %p count %d active %d\n", sb,
> sb->s_count, atomic_read(&sb->s_active));
>@@ -2021,10 +2020,10 @@ void ll_umount_begin(struct super_block *sb)
> * and then continue. For now, we just periodically checking for vfs
> * to decrement mnt_cnt and hope to finish it within 10sec.
> */
>- init_waitqueue_head(&waitq);
>- lwi = LWI_TIMEOUT_INTERVAL(10 * HZ,
>- HZ, NULL, NULL);
>- l_wait_event(waitq, may_umount(sbi->ll_mnt.mnt), &lwi);
>+ while (cnt < 10 && !may_umount(sbi->ll_mnt.mnt)) {
>+ schedule_timeout_uninterruptible(HZ);
>+ cnt ++;
>+ }
>
> schedule();
> }
>diff --git a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/lov/lov_request.c
>b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/lov/lov_request.c
>index fb3b7a7fa32a..c1e58fcc30b3 100644
>--- a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/lov/lov_request.c
>+++ b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/lov/lov_request.c
>@@ -99,8 +99,7 @@ static int lov_check_set(struct lov_obd *lov, int idx)
> */
> static int lov_check_and_wait_active(struct lov_obd *lov, int ost_idx)
> {
>- wait_queue_head_t waitq;
>- struct l_wait_info lwi;
>+ int cnt = 0;
> struct lov_tgt_desc *tgt;
> int rc = 0;
>
>@@ -125,11 +124,10 @@ static int lov_check_and_wait_active(struct lov_obd
>*lov, int ost_idx)
>
> mutex_unlock(&lov->lov_lock);
>
>- init_waitqueue_head(&waitq);
>- lwi = LWI_TIMEOUT_INTERVAL(obd_timeout * HZ,
>- HZ, NULL, NULL);
>-
>- rc = l_wait_event(waitq, lov_check_set(lov, ost_idx), &lwi);
>+ while (cnt < obd_timeout && !lov_check_set(lov, ost_idx)) {
>+ schedule_timeout_uninterruptible(HZ);
>+ cnt ++;
>+ }
> if (tgt->ltd_active)
> return 1;
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>lustre-devel mailing list
>lustre-devel@lists.lustre.org
>http://lists.lustre.org/listinfo.cgi/lustre-devel-lustre.org
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-12-18 20:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-12-18 7:17 [PATCH SERIES 5: 00/16] staging: lustre: use standard wait_event macros NeilBrown
2017-12-18 7:17 ` [PATCH 02/16] staging: lustre: replace simple cases of l_wait_event() with wait_event() NeilBrown
2017-12-18 17:48 ` [lustre-devel] " Patrick Farrell
2017-12-18 21:37 ` NeilBrown
2017-12-18 18:03 ` Patrick Farrell
2017-12-19 10:37 ` Dilger, Andreas
2017-12-19 20:49 ` NeilBrown
2017-12-18 7:17 ` [PATCH 03/16] staging: lustre: discard cfs_time_seconds() NeilBrown
2017-12-18 7:17 ` [PATCH 04/16] staging: lustre: use wait_event_timeout() where appropriate NeilBrown
2017-12-18 20:23 ` [lustre-devel] " Patrick Farrell
2017-12-18 7:17 ` [PATCH 01/16] staging: lustre: discard SVC_SIGNAL and related functions NeilBrown
2017-12-18 7:18 ` [PATCH 14/16] staging: lustre: use explicit poll loop in ptlrpc_service_unlink_rqbd NeilBrown
2017-12-18 7:18 ` [PATCH 16/16] staging: lustre: remove l_wait_event from ptlrpc_set_wait NeilBrown
2017-12-18 7:18 ` [PATCH 10/16] staging: lustre: remove back_to_sleep() and use loops NeilBrown
2017-12-18 7:18 ` [PATCH 08/16] staging: lustre: open code polling loop instead of using l_wait_event() NeilBrown
2017-12-18 20:55 ` Patrick Farrell [this message]
2017-12-18 7:18 ` [PATCH 12/16] staging: lustre: use wait_event_timeout in ptlrpcd() NeilBrown
2017-12-18 7:18 ` [PATCH 07/16] staging: lustre: simplify waiting in ldlm_completion_ast() NeilBrown
2017-12-18 7:18 ` [PATCH 11/16] staging: lustre: make polling loop in ptlrpc_unregister_bulk more obvious NeilBrown
2017-12-18 21:03 ` [lustre-devel] " Patrick Farrell
2017-12-18 7:18 ` [PATCH 13/16] staging: lustre: improve waiting in sptlrpc_req_refresh_ctx NeilBrown
2017-12-18 7:18 ` [PATCH 09/16] staging: lustre: simplify waiting in ptlrpc_invalidate_import() NeilBrown
2017-12-18 7:18 ` [PATCH 05/16] staging: lustre: introduce and use l_wait_event_abortable() NeilBrown
2017-12-18 7:18 ` [PATCH 15/16] staging: lustre: use explicit poll loop in ptlrpc_unregister_reply NeilBrown
2017-12-18 21:09 ` [lustre-devel] " Patrick Farrell
2017-12-18 7:18 ` [PATCH 06/16] staging: lustre: simplify l_wait_event when intr handler but no timeout NeilBrown
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=D65D86E7.C5E12%paf@cray.com \
--to=paf@cray.com \
--cc=andreas.dilger@intel.com \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=jsimmons@infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lustre-devel@lists.lustre.org \
--cc=neilb@suse.com \
--cc=oleg.drokin@intel.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