From: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com>
To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
Cc: Hanna Reitz <hreitz@redhat.com>, Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>,
qemu-block@nongnu.org,
Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito <eesposit@redhat.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com>
Subject: [PATCH v2 1/3] block: make BlockBackend->quiesce_counter atomic
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2023 16:04:25 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20230307210427.269214-2-stefanha@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230307210427.269214-1-stefanha@redhat.com>
The main loop thread increments/decrements BlockBackend->quiesce_counter
when drained sections begin/end. The counter is read in the I/O code
path. Therefore this field is used to communicate between threads
without a lock.
Acquire/release are not necessary because the BlockBackend->in_flight
counter already uses sequentially consistent accesses and running I/O
requests hold that counter when blk_wait_while_drained() is called.
qatomic_read() can be used.
Use qatomic_fetch_inc()/qatomic_fetch_dec() for modifications even
though sequentially consistent atomic accesses are not strictly required
here. They are, however, nicer to read than multiple calls to
qatomic_read() and qatomic_set(). Since beginning and ending drain is
not a hot path the extra cost doesn't matter.
Signed-off-by: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com>
---
block/block-backend.c | 14 +++++++-------
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
diff --git a/block/block-backend.c b/block/block-backend.c
index 278b04ce69..68807be32b 100644
--- a/block/block-backend.c
+++ b/block/block-backend.c
@@ -80,7 +80,7 @@ struct BlockBackend {
NotifierList remove_bs_notifiers, insert_bs_notifiers;
QLIST_HEAD(, BlockBackendAioNotifier) aio_notifiers;
- int quiesce_counter;
+ int quiesce_counter; /* atomic: written under BQL, read by other threads */
CoQueue queued_requests;
bool disable_request_queuing;
@@ -1057,7 +1057,7 @@ void blk_set_dev_ops(BlockBackend *blk, const BlockDevOps *ops,
blk->dev_opaque = opaque;
/* Are we currently quiesced? Should we enforce this right now? */
- if (blk->quiesce_counter && ops && ops->drained_begin) {
+ if (qatomic_read(&blk->quiesce_counter) && ops && ops->drained_begin) {
ops->drained_begin(opaque);
}
}
@@ -1271,7 +1271,7 @@ static void coroutine_fn blk_wait_while_drained(BlockBackend *blk)
{
assert(blk->in_flight > 0);
- if (blk->quiesce_counter && !blk->disable_request_queuing) {
+ if (qatomic_read(&blk->quiesce_counter) && !blk->disable_request_queuing) {
blk_dec_in_flight(blk);
qemu_co_queue_wait(&blk->queued_requests, NULL);
blk_inc_in_flight(blk);
@@ -2568,7 +2568,7 @@ static void blk_root_drained_begin(BdrvChild *child)
BlockBackend *blk = child->opaque;
ThrottleGroupMember *tgm = &blk->public.throttle_group_member;
- if (++blk->quiesce_counter == 1) {
+ if (qatomic_fetch_inc(&blk->quiesce_counter) == 0) {
if (blk->dev_ops && blk->dev_ops->drained_begin) {
blk->dev_ops->drained_begin(blk->dev_opaque);
}
@@ -2586,7 +2586,7 @@ static bool blk_root_drained_poll(BdrvChild *child)
{
BlockBackend *blk = child->opaque;
bool busy = false;
- assert(blk->quiesce_counter);
+ assert(qatomic_read(&blk->quiesce_counter));
if (blk->dev_ops && blk->dev_ops->drained_poll) {
busy = blk->dev_ops->drained_poll(blk->dev_opaque);
@@ -2597,12 +2597,12 @@ static bool blk_root_drained_poll(BdrvChild *child)
static void blk_root_drained_end(BdrvChild *child)
{
BlockBackend *blk = child->opaque;
- assert(blk->quiesce_counter);
+ assert(qatomic_read(&blk->quiesce_counter));
assert(blk->public.throttle_group_member.io_limits_disabled);
qatomic_dec(&blk->public.throttle_group_member.io_limits_disabled);
- if (--blk->quiesce_counter == 0) {
+ if (qatomic_fetch_dec(&blk->quiesce_counter) == 1) {
if (blk->dev_ops && blk->dev_ops->drained_end) {
blk->dev_ops->drained_end(blk->dev_opaque);
}
--
2.39.2
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-03-07 21:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-03-07 21:04 [PATCH v2 0/3] block: protect BlockBackend->queued_requests with a lock Stefan Hajnoczi
2023-03-07 21:04 ` Stefan Hajnoczi [this message]
2023-03-07 21:10 ` [PATCH v2 1/3] block: make BlockBackend->quiesce_counter atomic Philippe Mathieu-Daudé
2023-03-07 21:04 ` [PATCH v2 2/3] block: make BlockBackend->disable_request_queuing atomic Stefan Hajnoczi
2023-03-07 21:10 ` Philippe Mathieu-Daudé
2023-03-09 9:07 ` Paolo Bonzini
2023-03-09 12:31 ` Stefan Hajnoczi
2023-03-09 13:37 ` Paolo Bonzini
2023-03-09 11:18 ` Paolo Bonzini
2023-03-09 12:12 ` Stefan Hajnoczi
2023-03-07 21:04 ` [PATCH v2 3/3] block: protect BlockBackend->queued_requests with a lock Stefan Hajnoczi
2023-03-08 9:46 ` [PATCH v2 0/3] " Kevin Wolf
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=20230307210427.269214-2-stefanha@redhat.com \
--to=stefanha@redhat.com \
--cc=eesposit@redhat.com \
--cc=hreitz@redhat.com \
--cc=kwolf@redhat.com \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=qemu-block@nongnu.org \
--cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).