[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.1.10.0903131732300.13254@makko.or.mcafeemobile.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2009 18:40:22 -0700 (PDT)
From: Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org>
To: Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@....uio.no>
cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>,
Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>, Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>,
linux-aio <linux-aio@...ck.org>, zach.brown@...cle.com,
Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@...ck.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs: fput() can be called from interrupt context
On Fri, 13 Mar 2009, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-03-12 at 06:39 -0700, Davide Libenzi wrote:
> > On Wed, 11 Mar 2009, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >
> > > > Take the time to check how fs/aio.c handle the fput(req->ki_filp) case
> > > > (or read my 2nd patch, it should spot the thing)
> > >
> > > Well yes, a kludge like that seems a bit safer.
> > >
> > > It's somewhat encouraging that we're apparently already doing fput()
> > > from within keventd (although how frequently?). There might be
> > > problems with file locking, security code, etc from doing fput() from
> > > an unexpected thread. And then there are all the usual weird problem
> > > with using the keventd queues which take a long time to get discovered.
> >
> > Would it be a huge problem, performance-wise, to stop making ->f_count
> > tricks in __aio_put_req, and always offload to fput_work the task of
> > releasing the requests?
> > If that's a huge problem, IMO the lower impact fix would be to use
> > aio_fput_routine to loop into a second list, releasing the eventual
> > eventfd file*. There's no need, IMO, to turn the whole fput() into
> > IRQ-callable just for this case, when we can contain it into the
> > particular KAIO+eventfd usage.
> >
>
> Do you really want to see eventd doing umounts and remote flock() calls?
> This really needs to be run in a thread that can cope with __long__
> waits, unavailable servers, etc...
Did I miss something? This wouldn't be (eventually) on keventd shoulders,
but on aio work queue (aio_wq).
I guess we could do the same optimization we're already doing for ki_filp,
for ki_eventfd ...
- Davide
---
fs/aio.c | 32 ++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
Index: linux-2.6.mod/fs/aio.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.mod.orig/fs/aio.c 2009-03-13 18:19:34.000000000 -0700
+++ linux-2.6.mod/fs/aio.c 2009-03-13 18:32:25.000000000 -0700
@@ -485,8 +485,6 @@ static inline void really_put_req(struct
{
assert_spin_locked(&ctx->ctx_lock);
- if (!IS_ERR(req->ki_eventfd))
- fput(req->ki_eventfd);
if (req->ki_dtor)
req->ki_dtor(req);
if (req->ki_iovec != &req->ki_inline_vec)
@@ -508,8 +506,11 @@ static void aio_fput_routine(struct work
list_del(&req->ki_list);
spin_unlock_irq(&fput_lock);
- /* Complete the fput */
- __fput(req->ki_filp);
+ /* Complete the fput(s) */
+ if (req->ki_filp != NULL)
+ __fput(req->ki_filp);
+ if (!IS_ERR(req->ki_eventfd))
+ __fput(req->ki_eventfd);
/* Link the iocb into the context's free list */
spin_lock_irq(&ctx->ctx_lock);
@@ -527,12 +528,14 @@ static void aio_fput_routine(struct work
*/
static int __aio_put_req(struct kioctx *ctx, struct kiocb *req)
{
+ int schedule_putreq = 0;
+
dprintk(KERN_DEBUG "aio_put(%p): f_count=%ld\n",
req, atomic_long_read(&req->ki_filp->f_count));
assert_spin_locked(&ctx->ctx_lock);
- req->ki_users --;
+ req->ki_users--;
BUG_ON(req->ki_users < 0);
if (likely(req->ki_users))
return 0;
@@ -540,10 +543,23 @@ static int __aio_put_req(struct kioctx *
req->ki_cancel = NULL;
req->ki_retry = NULL;
- /* Must be done under the lock to serialise against cancellation.
- * Call this aio_fput as it duplicates fput via the fput_work.
+ /*
+ * Try to optimize the aio and eventfd file* puts, by avoiding to
+ * schedule work in case it is not __fput() time. In normal cases,
+ * we wouldn not be holding the last reference to the file*, so
+ * this function will be executed w/out any aio kthread wakeup.
*/
- if (unlikely(atomic_long_dec_and_test(&req->ki_filp->f_count))) {
+ if (unlikely(atomic_long_dec_and_test(&req->ki_filp->f_count)))
+ schedule_putreq++;
+ else
+ req->ki_filp = NULL;
+ if (unlikely(!IS_ERR(req->ki_eventfd))) {
+ if (unlikely(atomic_long_dec_and_test(&req->ki_eventfd->f_count)))
+ schedule_putreq++;
+ else
+ req->ki_eventfd = ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
+ }
+ if (unlikely(schedule_putreq)) {
get_ioctx(ctx);
spin_lock(&fput_lock);
list_add(&req->ki_list, &fput_head);
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists